I do not listen to that kind of music, reason why I wrote "hear" not "listen to". What I refer to is the music that you randomly get exposed to in a mainstream context, so to say.
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 Trying to Torpedo Spotify's U.S. Launch?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I do not listen to that kind of music, reason why I wrote "hear" not "listen to". What I refer to is the music that you randomly get exposed to in a mainstream context, so to say.
You are worth listening to!
I have a bachelor's in music performance from a University in the USA, I have a master's degree in Musicology, and DEM ( highest music performance degree in France) both of in Paris. i just finished my doctorate, I was placed among the best 5% of final recitals. Now, ask me how much I make for a living. I am sure any mediocre manager, engineer or lawyer make a lot more money than I do. I knew I wasn't going to be rich, but I had to do it because I love it. Fortunately, there many of us willing to sacrifice for the love of art. Unfortunately, there are more stupid people who think they know music. There are those also who think that popular means better. If that were true Macdonald's would be the best restaurant on earth.
It's really a battle between the "old" music establishment - who are 99% clueless - and the "new" establishment, who understand the technology and the changing marketplace much better...but they're even greedier than the old generation. It's all about $$$, always was, always will be.
The real irony of all this is that the LABELS themselves have a vested interest in Spotify - around 30% if I recall correctly.
The real irony of all this is that the LABELS themselves have a vested interest in Spotify - around 30% if I recall correctly.
I don't get why it's 1) weak or 2) relevant - the radio is a completely different means of listening to music. If you can't see that, then you're really going to struggle to understand listening habits, target audiences etc...
No way near as much as if she'd been paid for her studio work too. It used to be that the income from recorded music was the main source of income, now it's the other way round, but the amount of money actually earned from touring hasn't really increased to make up the difference.
Bear in mind, while most people hate 'the big labels' - it's only the top few percent of those labels who actually make enough money to live off - the rest of them earn less than £5000 a year (a pittance as an income) as a direct result of their music. Those top few high-grossing artists actually filter down their income to the rest of the musicians through the labels which is what allows record companies like Sony and EMI to support so many artists. Unfortunately, that income has dropped massively over the last few years (and continues to drop) so as a result, the labels are trending more and more towards artists they know are going to profit on a large scale (ie, safe bets, music which has already been tried and tested).
We can go into a debate about that approach, but it's fairly obvious what the musical implications of that sort of situation are...
Thanks for your politeness
apple have never innovated in the true sense of the word.
They either buy (iPod) or steal (cover flow) other niche ideas and make them more mainstream.
..and they are ONLY interested in AAPL.
the rest is just marketing,spin and BS.!
It's strange but I cannot hear what you are talking about. The music I listen to and the music that I hear is mostly OK. You know that you can influence the kind of music that you are exposed to, right?
Listen to different radio channels, go to different stores and watch different TV shows - problem solved.
You can also use Spotify and chose exactly what you want to hear.
Exactly, and that's what I do.
I'm not surprised that you don't know what you are talking about. Did somebody threaten your beloved corporate monster? Go and kick them!
Meanwhile, can you stop listening to the radio and watching television, please? That free content is not for you.
You are a hairs-breadth away from needing medical attention.
This is truly sad that Apple are doing this, Spotify is a brilliant service, I dont even notice that the music is streamed, It's that fast. I even bought Premium, now all the songs I added can be listened to when offline, and they're all on my iPhone & iPad.
Considering I've added about 400 songs to my playlists in the 2 months I've been with Spotify Premium, at £10 a month, Ive saved so much money than if I'd forked out 99p per song on iTunes. iTunes only serves to sync my iPhone & iPad now.
Considering I've added about 400 songs to my playlists in the 2 months I've been with Spotify Premium, at £10 a month, Ive saved so much money than if I'd forked out 99p per song on iTunes. iTunes only serves to sync my iPhone & iPad now.
Again, you do not understand the business model behind spotify.
Or you know, turn on the radio and listen to music for free. How did the artists get payed back then ?
Apparently YOU do not understand radio.
Radio stations log every record they play and pay significant fees to agencies like ASCAP & BMI (US) and PRS (UK). These royalties are then paid to the publishers and songwriters.
If Apple had come up with Spotify and it was another company that was trying to beat Apple, you would be saying the total opposite. You would say that it was 'only Apple that saw the potential in streaming music and all the other software companies failed due to their lack of being Apple.' You wouldn't even breathe the word 'torrent'.
As a music writer, session musician and producer, I think that is one of the most stupidest things I have ever heard on this forum.
And if Spotify's business model wasn't healthy or whatever, why are your almighty Apple trying to get into the same game? Yet again *LTD*, I post another sarcastic roll-eyes emoticon in reply to one of your posts.
Uh, apparently you failed to read the rest of my post where I explained all of what you said.
Let me help you out a bit, here's the rest of the post :
Can you help me out a little bit more? I'm struggling to understand what you are trying to say here.
Oh my god, you just released the business scheme of every major corporation in the world
I use spotify for basically all my music listening, and love it. I've heard that the reimbursement to the artist aren't very high as some people pointed out, but to be honest - it's not our problem. If the record companies agreed on a fee per song and Spotify pays up, everyone should be happy. If the artists are not getting a big enough piece of the cake, it's the record companies that are greedy or made a bad deal.
I respect Spotify for providing the first (in Europe, at least) viable alternative to LEGAL streaming music over the web.
The only thing I don't like about it is that the iPhone client has some limitations (only lists music in the order you added it - no way to sort my artist / songname). I also hope an iPad client will be out real soon. I'm sure this will get adressed soon
I respect Spotify for providing the first (in Europe, at least) viable alternative to LEGAL streaming music over the web.
The only thing I don't like about it is that the iPhone client has some limitations (only lists music in the order you added it - no way to sort my artist / songname). I also hope an iPad client will be out real soon. I'm sure this will get adressed soon
Are you really ?
The free service depends on advertising. In the end, Spotify pays royalties to record companies that in turn pay to produce music. How they pay for it through the free service is through advertisers. You listening to music is what Spotify is then selling to make money to provide said music.
Exactly like commercial radio does. That's how something can be free yet all royalties can get paid. It has been this way for years with TV, Radio and now some streaming services use the same model.
Anyone here screaming that Spotify is akin to torrenting and pirating music is basically wrong and just trying to again defend Apple. About the only way to defend Apple on this is to claim this rumor is false. That's the only defensible position there is. Anyone trying to argue Spotify is somehow the bad guy is really being disingenious.
A few comments.
1 - The Lady Gaga $167 royalties rumor was false. It was a number made up by someone, and has been refuted by both Spotify and Lady Gaga's people.
2 - Artists don't make THAT much money from touring. My band recently toured across Europe as a support act, playing arenas. Smallest room was 4000, largest room was 15000. 95% sold out over 27 shows. Sold just over 1000 euros (gross) of merchandise every night. Slept in the cheapest hotels we could find (i.e., Formula1), or residences of friends / family. We _just_ barely broke even. Touring is expensive, and now that the recording income streams are drying up, EVERYONE wants a share of the touring income.
3 - We recorded our album in our rehearsal space and our living room. Using our microphones + preamps, mixing in-computer, mastering ourselves. Album got a four-star review in Rolling Stone. You don't need to spend money to have a good product. ITSS. It's the songs, stupid. ;-)
1 - The Lady Gaga $167 royalties rumor was false. It was a number made up by someone, and has been refuted by both Spotify and Lady Gaga's people.
2 - Artists don't make THAT much money from touring. My band recently toured across Europe as a support act, playing arenas. Smallest room was 4000, largest room was 15000. 95% sold out over 27 shows. Sold just over 1000 euros (gross) of merchandise every night. Slept in the cheapest hotels we could find (i.e., Formula1), or residences of friends / family. We _just_ barely broke even. Touring is expensive, and now that the recording income streams are drying up, EVERYONE wants a share of the touring income.
3 - We recorded our album in our rehearsal space and our living room. Using our microphones + preamps, mixing in-computer, mastering ourselves. Album got a four-star review in Rolling Stone. You don't need to spend money to have a good product. ITSS. It's the songs, stupid. ;-)
Are you really ?
The free service depends on advertising. In the end, Spotify pays royalties to record companies that in turn pay to produce music. How they pay for it through the free service is through advertisers. You listening to music is what Spotify is then selling to make money to provide said music.
Exactly like commercial radio does. That's how something can be free yet all royalties can get paid. It has been this way for years with TV, Radio and now some streaming services use the same model.
Anyone here screaming that Spotify is akin to torrenting and pirating music is basically wrong and just trying to again defend Apple. About the only way to defend Apple on this is to claim this rumor is false. That's the only defensible position there is. Anyone trying to argue Spotify is somehow the bad guy is really being disingenious.
Yes! People need to get this.
Oh my god, you just released the business scheme of every major corporation in the world
I agree but...
if Apple does it....... innovation
anyone else....... copycats
the worst thing about Apple IS the fans!
So, if you record something from the radio, you "steal"?
I'm basically against piracy too, but please stop using this simple copyright violation == theft. It's not. If you steal something you violate a basic human right, not if you copy something.
Copyright is a "utilitarian" law. The thinking is; if we give the artist/writer a limited monopoly (s)he will continue producing works for the benefit of society. So, it's (or should be) a win-win situation for all parties.
The law should be so "tuned" to produce the most benefit for the society (that the artist can become rich is not the goal, but just fine, as long as we all benefit from it).
The question is if todays copyright laws should be changed to maximize that benefit? I think so, but that's another question.
But if you think, and beleive, that copyright is a basic human right, and eqaute breking it with stealing, then you're not only wrong, you're limiting your own thinking.
( It's the same with patents, if they don't produce what they are designed for (== more inventions, better life) they should be re-tuned. There not there to protect someones "property", but a means to an end)
Anyway Spotify competes with radio and pirating music, and does so sucessfully mostly by making it much simpler (and so disproving the "you can't compete with free" paradigm) Apple competes with selling plastic things and does so sucessfully.
The "radio"/"mtv"/"free"/adsupported market is converging with the "selling albums" market. Guess they have to meet somewhere in the middle. Everybody will bitch and moan, but hopefully they will work something out, or something will be worked out for them in the end.
I don't think Apple would be so stupid to try and hinder Spotify, I think they also want lower prices, more access to media (== sells more of the stuff they make).
(It also would open them up for major lawsuits and/or major fines in the EU)