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

[Scarpad]

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

Really is a good deal with Prime, granted the music isn't new every Tuesday but they add albums constantly, plus any CD you buy gets yo a streaming version as well. And the IOS app is p retty nice too

 

[oldhifi]

Really is a good deal with Prime, granted the music isn't new every Tuesday but they add albums constantly, plus any CD you buy gets yo a streaming version as well. And the IOS app is p retty nice too

I really like the 60's and 70's music they have, have not heard those songs in a long time

 

[ArmCortexA8]

No one can convince me to pay to listen to music. As for Soundcloud, I can download all the songs I want - for free Even when the Download button is not available.

 

[Zedcars]

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.

Your ignorance about what artists get paid is shocking. The fact that you derive pleasure from the hard work of so many musicians shows that you value what they provide. The fact is only a very few artists are making enough money to be considered "rich" as you put it. You seem to forget, or not understand that most albums are not produced by 1 person alone - even with the advent of the 'bedroom musician' where a lot can be recorded at home. Most artists still need other musicians, recording engineers, producers, design and marketing teams etc to produce and advertise an album. Those people need to make a living. The meager income provided by streaming music services to date is not enough to sustain these hard-working people. Hence why the poster you replied to was wishing there to be fairer subscription prices to reflect what artists need to continue to be the best that they can. You aren't going to get that if they have to work a 9-5 to make ends meat.

Wake up!

 

[rockosmodurnlif]

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.

Maybe Spotify and Bose didn't want to sell.

 

[Saucesome2000]

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.

This couldn't be more wrong. Apple and mainly Steve fought for the only viable alternative to piracy back when Napster came out. iTunes didn't hurt the income of artists, Napster did. If it weren't for Steve Jobs, the record companies and Metallica would still be crying about piracy while offering no viable alternatives. At least iTunes gave the artist a chance to make royalties on the $1.29 download as opposed to the $0.00 download. So yes, Apple is the knight in shining armor.

 

[lcj005]

The UK won't ever experience this new feature because of Apple's domestic market focus, so we'll stick with Spotify through our tinny little white buds.

 

[Abazigal]

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.

Therein lies the problem.

The free tier of spotify is hardly earning Spotify any money. So it's analogous to music piracy in that it is basically allowing users to access free music. And that was what nearly killed the music industry a decade ago.

I am of the opinion that for streaming music to be economically viable, the free tier (even if it is ad-supported, because that's just not bringing in enough money) needs to die.

 

[whsbuss]

Been wanting to subscribe to iTunes Match but I'm gonna wait till the WWDC announcement. My library is only approx. 3000 and getting higher quality tracks is nice. But I want to see what iTunes Radio will be under the new scheme.

 

[nburwell]

I really don't know how Apple is going to convince users like myself to ditch Spotify in favor of their own streaming service when it launches in June. For me, I'll be hard pressed to cancel my Spotify subcription to move to over to Apple. We'll see though.

 

[whsbuss]

Two reasons I don't go with a Spotify subscription:

1. All streamed music is left in a cache which over time uses up my available memory on my devices

2. Can't play my music on Apple TV

 

[djtech42]

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.

Can you provide a link to this "research?" I don't understand how they could make a blanket statement like that when people have different ears and different sensitivities to sound and detail. I know that I hear a difference between TIDAL and iTunes, although that is between lossless and 256 kbps.

 

[Eldiablojoe]

I appreciate the product artists create. Hearing a song I like adds to the quality of my life. Their product does not add anymore to the quality of my life than does a movie I enjoy, a good wine, a nice meal, or the guy that fixes my iPhone. I do not believe artists should be paid ridiculous money for their creation.

Artists are overpaid. Fine, they love and live their vocation. So does a painter who struggles to sell anything in a gallery. So does the Apple-fan who works at the Apple Store.

A fair wage is fine. Utility people and retail workers spend as many hours at work and work just as hard - maybe more so, than 4-guys in a van playing in clubs every night, or Jay-Z in a recording studio.

I do not believe The Beatles or Coldplay warrant any greater income than my Apple Genius.

If I really like an artist and want to enjoy their creation anytime I like, I will buy their product whether it be a CD or MP3 /AAC. Otherwise, please put me back in a time machine to the days prior to digital music and streaming. I would prefer an FM Radio station that had a handful of genre stations that nearly everyone listened to and was a cultural touchstone.