Yeah and maybe you could think this article isn't true for once. Lord knows this forum believes anything negative about Apple.
Think about it. When has Apple ever attempted to pre-kill it's competitors in order to monopolize business? That's Microsoft and Samsung, not Apple. Come on man.![]()
The people who are forced out of the free version won't switch to Apple, they'll just go back to pirating.
Yeah, this article has got me worried that might happen.![]()
Pretty much exclusively stupid comments here.
Some facts:
Ad-based music offerings devalue music, are not sustainable. Tying an entire industry to the whims of the internet advertising market isn't doing anyone a favor.
Apple has paid more to labels/artists in the last quarter than the entire subscription based industry life to date.
Subscription based music offerings have resulted in massively lower music sales without the revenue to replace what was lost.
Not facts, but true:
Ad-based services suck. Junked up interfaces, click here for pepsi, etc. No one wants that crap. The only people who use subscription music services and don't pay are those who can't pay - trying to shake a few cents out of that audience is not a thing Apple does.
Apple appears to be attempting to reshape the streaming market into one where a premium, exclusively subscription-based offering can exist. I don't see how this is a bad thing, seeing as we all like high quality things here.
Make a free Spotify account, login to Spotify Desktop with no subscription and tell me that is a high quality service...
Apple, just create a service that's head and shoulders above the alternatives so that people with Apple hardware will want to use it by default instead of getting it for free. iTunes was the epitome of that for me a decade ago.
iTunes completely put an end to music piracy for me 10 years ago because I could have access to tons of vetted content in one place and, more importantly, I could get just the music I wanted without having to buy a CD full of things I didn't want.
A certain Book scandal that they were found guilty comes to mind.
I completely disagree. Not all supported music services "suck"--though that is subjective of course.
I use a free ad-supported service and I have to only endure one 10-30 second commercial a day. I wouldn't say that is terribly onerous.
It sounds like you're trying to justify Apple's anti-consumer behavior here.
If paid services are so superior than why does Apple feel the need to try and eliminate the ad-supported free services?
Call me new fashioned, but I rather listen to unlimited music for half the price of an album with spotlight student pricing per month. $60 a year.
Spotify free should end. The amount they pay out is ridiculous because people love to be cheapskates and want everything for free. Music streaming services should be like Netflix, pay or nothing. If people are perfectly fine paying for Netflix and not having a free tier, why must we allow it in music?
I completely disagree. Not all supported music services "suck"--though that is subjective of course.
I use a free ad-supported service and I have to only endure one 10-30 second commercial a day. I wouldn't say that is terribly onerous.
It sounds like you're trying to justify Apple's anti-consumer behavior here.
If paid services are so superior than why does Apple feel the need to try and eliminate the ad-supported free services?
Well I would prefer to wait and see if something happens than to put the accused in prison without any proof. That's what many of you guys refuse to do around here.
Call me old fashioned, but I would rather just own my music.
Apple Urging Music Labels to Stop Licensing Free Songs on Spotify and YouTube
Call me old fashioned, but I would rather just own my music.
I wonder if this is Apple-Apple or this is Beats-Apple trying for this move. Iovine and Dre are old-school music. The new-school, free tier streaming goes against everything they've spent their careers on.
The old way is losing it's grip, and the big artists that prop up the old business are saying the same thing. Taylor Swift, Tidal and now this-it just reeks of the old business that refuses to adapt.
Not true. Tidal has no free tier and no ads. Same with Rdio, and also Netflix.
Spotify needs to have ads because they are the biggest player and they know that without free they would not dominate market share as much.
Subscription based music offerings have resulted in massively lower music sales without the revenue to replace what was lost.
Doubtful, since Apple was the main company that got people into buying music again when pirating was very popular.
Most would argue that Napster started killing music sales long before Spotify existed. Today, my teenage daughter goes to Youtube for songs, many of which are unlicensed uploads by users.
Subscription as a model isn't the issue... it's the lack of exclusivity. HBO and Netflix are certainly not killing the TV and movie show industries, but it would decline if we could pay $10 a month to one service and get Game of Thrones, House of Cards, *and* The Walking Dead.
They build value from exclusives, which is probably where music will go - which is unfortunate for consumers.