So what is your alternative? They already killed Grooveshark. Now on to Spotify. Soundcloud is all that's left that's good IMO.
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 Urging Music Labels to Stop Licensing Free Songs on Spotify and YouTube
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
So what is your alternative? They already killed Grooveshark. Now on to Spotify. Soundcloud is all that's left that's good IMO.
How does REMOVING those avenues of opportunity help them though? More over, how does it help you? How does it help anyone but Apple? You acknowledge the struggle yet you're backing an idea to make it harder.
Apple gets the middle finger from me on this issue. For this, I will support iTunes but never Beats.
And unlikely I will ever again upgrade from my iPhone 6. Will have my Android mostly due to Apple's bullying in the business arena.
And unlikely I will ever again upgrade from my iPhone 6. Will have my Android mostly due to Apple's bullying in the business arena.
Problem with this is I don't always have a good internet connection or unlimited data on my phone. That being said I know I am in the minority. For now the combo of my iPod Classic 160gb and my iPhone does the job. Plus I like knowing i can pick up my iPod and listen to what I want and not have to listen to a random song based of an artist or genre on a station I made. I guess you can call me old fashion. Or you can blame AT&T for not offering me unlimited data. And don't get me started on the whole but Sprint and T-Mobile off unlimited data argument lol.
Certainly not backing anything, just acknowledging the way things are. I really hope they aren't removed. My post was merely stating that the independent artist has, overwhelmingly, been underpaid in the industry from day 1 - and *any* mega company jumping into the industry won't be focused on helping the independent artist...despite what they might say.
----------
I don't have an alternative.
Well, The Beatles didn't produce the White Album to make money, that's for sure. In fact, they kinda went out of their way to make it *not* commercial, filling it with a bunch of personal/ego tracks. It's hard to use The Beatles as an example of doing stuff for money, because since they were never following, and always leading, what they were getting into may or may not have been commercial when all was said and done. In the end, it went on to sell about 20 million copies anyway, so yeah, they would have made some money off that
So the moral here is, make art first, don't worry about money, and if it's good, people will buy. And the proof is in the pudding. That's an unbelievable double LP. Has almost every genre of music throughout.
Now the days of buying albums are over, so yes, there needs to be another way for artists to make money. But labels will always have the control.There are only a handful of bands, Beatles included, that would actually dictate to the label how they wanted things to go. Few bands/artists ever have that power. So for the 99.9% of everyone else, the label rules the land.
As for classical stuff, those musicians get paid mostly for session work, unless you are a very famous musician, and can take your stuff on the road. So not the same there.
----------
That's exactly what I'm saying. I agree 100% with you!!! Making money is #1 priority. Making products and making people happy are down on the list somewhere else.
This is 100% right. I love my spotify premium, and at $5pm (student) it's beyond worth it IMO. But some people just don't want to pay, but they'll suffer through an ad. That model at least generates some income for artists. Pirating equals nothing.
Yeah I think its time for the DOJ to come visit Apple and have a talk. This is the type of problems that start to happen when companies start to get too big. They think they can push people around. Not good consumers .
agree and disagree i use its iTunes radio to listen and find new tunes before i dole out 1.29 on a track
Even if they managed to make this happen, I sure as hell wouldn't use a service made by Apple. Their services are generally awful and also restricted to their own devices. I'll stick with services that work universally.
----------
What a dumb post. You can do both. I own music and I also use Free Spotify to listen to stuff I have no interest in owning.
----------
What a dumb post. You can do both. I own music and I also use Free Spotify to listen to stuff I have no interest in owning.
I really did use to like Apple a lot and still own quite a few Apple products, but stuff like this is why I'm slowly moving away from the platform.
Apple made $40 billion in profits last year and is sitting on $200 billion in cash, and they're trying to make listening to music just a little more cumbersome and expensive so they can increase profits by half a percent.
Apple made $40 billion in profits last year and is sitting on $200 billion in cash, and they're trying to make listening to music just a little more cumbersome and expensive so they can increase profits by half a percent.
Unfortunately the customer isn't "always right" anymore...the new theme is, "All hail the shareholder." All shareholders want is profit.
I disagree completely.
For years, media production companies were able to charge whatever they wanted for music and movies, and then subsequently pay actors $20 million a film and keep a cool $100 million in profits for a movie. Now that piracy is so easy, a lot of these companies are saying to themselves, "Hey, maybe $20 million a film is too high a price to pay an actor or actress. Maybe a hit music star can do just fine making $5 million off a hit album instead of $50 million."
I think the Internet is starting to make adjustments for services that have been priced way too high to begin with. I and a lot of other people don't want to pay $1,300 to put 1,000 songs on an iPod, and a lot people are just going to go right back to piracy if Spotify and similar services are disbanded.
Yes, I do realize that's basic economics. Not everything should have a price in this world, but music definitely should.
Your TV example is also affected by inflation. A payphone call used to cost a dime back in the day. Now it's a lot more.
There's no proof any of this is true. My advice continue enjoying Apple products because they truly are the best. Should real proof come forward that Apple is less pure than we all believe, by all means make a change. But I wouldn't make decisions based on silly gossip blogs that get reported on here. That's cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You've never really owned your music, just a (revocable) license to listen to a copy. Yes, even that The Mamas and the Papas LP you may have is property of the record company.
But I agree with the spirit of your post. Something in my possession vs. a service.
Yes, an absolute scandal. Handing over an eBook monopoly to Amazon was criminal.
Yes it was & they got caught.
It's mind boggling you're even trying to defend their actions.
I'm afraid that wouldn't attract _many_ customers.
Actually, I have decent speakers, some very nice headphones, and when I started ripping music years ago I checked all kinds of bitrates and didn't feel a difference between 160 and 192Kbit AAC. (I say "feel" because I couldn't explain _what_ the difference between 128 and 160 was, but something was lost). 256Kbit is far beyond that and AAC encoders have improved since. I don't think the higher bitrate would actually creaete better audio quality unless you have _very_ expensive equipment.
Last edited: