Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
No, the concern is that each streaming service will have exclusives, which will lead to no streaming service actually having everything on it.

Bingo. It's like exclusive games for consoles..... People will need multiple streaming services.
 
Who cares about all these exclusives.
You want me to switch over from Spotify Premium?
Make a deal with AT&T and Verizon to where streaming from your service doesn't hit my data usage.
I'm in day one, baby!
Put a big fat AT&T logo on the front if you want.
 
Yep, this is what is going to making the future of streaming services suck. They always find a way to ruin things.

You want artist A you need to subscribe to service X
You want artist B you need to subscribe to service Y
You want artist C you need to subscribe to service Z

Not all terrestrial/satellite radio stations have the same library. So what's the difference???
 
Dr. Dre, Pharrell and Taylor Swift are great reasons to not sign up for Apple Pay.

The more I can avoid accidentally listening to that garbage, the better.

Your' "tune" will change when your top 5 favorite artists are on "exclusive" sites.

I realize you are just trolling, but none the less...
 
  • Like
Reactions: bpeeps
Yep, this is what is going to making the future of streaming services suck. They always find a way to ruin things.

You want artist A you need to subscribe to service X
You want artist B you need to subscribe to service Y
You want artist C you need to subscribe to service Z
Yep, capitalism has some really stupid limitations.
Making money is better than producing what people need and want.
 
Not all terrestrial/satellite radio stations have the same library. So what's the difference???

1.) Radio is free
2.) Satellite radio is a monopoly for the most part.
You don't pay for each and every station on satellite radio.

There is a big difference.
 
Yep, this is what is going to making the future of streaming services suck. They always find a way to ruin things.

You want artist A you need to subscribe to service X
You want artist B you need to subscribe to service Y
You want artist C you need to subscribe to service Z

Or, yanno, just buy the album. You don't *have* to use a streaming service for your music.
 
  • Like
Reactions: darcyf
This is only good news for Apple, bad news for the rest of us.

All of these exclusivity deals are going to drive me back to pirating music.

If you don't release your music to every streaming service, at the same time, I'll gladly download from a source where you won't get a dime of my money.

So you've admitted to pirating music?

This is exactly what will happen, greed (by the companies) will ruin things like it always does.

I don't necessarily view it as greed. I just think Apple is making every attempt at getting at the forefront in an already established market, but one with tremendous growth potential. I think there's both short and long-term goals. Getting exclusive deals are short-term goals, and changing the overall music industry (again) is the long-term goal.

Unlike Spotify and the like, Apple Music and Beats1 will be seamlessly integrated into millions of devices around the world. No extra apps to install. No extra accounts to create. It will just "be there", like turning on the radio in your home. That transparency is not quite there yet with existing services.

No, the concern is that each streaming service will have exclusives, which will lead to no streaming service actually having everything on it.

Nobody knows how long these exclusivity agreements will last. Dr. Dre's agreement may just be an experiment to see how it goes, and then the music will be expanded to other services.
 
this is great news! i already had this album on vinyl, and cd, and converted into high-bitrate mp3s, but now that i can stream it in substandard compressed quality with the convenience of the cloud and Apple Music, i can throw all those antiquated formats away! hooray!
 
Television (in the US) isn't fragmented. (Except for a few highly specialized channels)

It's not like I can only watch ESPN if if have Time Warner.
And only History Channel if I have ATT
And Animal Planet if I only have DISH

There are a few instances in television but its more experimental deals that backfired on someone.
Example that comes to mind is, NFL Sunday Ticket is a deal the NFL regrets big time, they are loosing tons of potential revenue.
Maybe that will be the case with exclusive deals at some point we can only hope.

Ultimately if the artists make less money by going exclusive,chances are they won't make the same mistake twice.

Exclusives still suck for the consumer in the end, I just wish Spotify and Apple would battle for the consumer with things like user interface, sound quality, product integration,product features, instead of we have artist "blah blah" and they don't.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Strutten
Well, you're obviously not running a business or having any revenue/margin obligations at all. It's legitimate the artists also try to maximize their money like you try to do.
Welcome to the free-market economy ;) With no fragmentation a monopoly will be the outcome and costs will rise in absence of competition.

And at the end, the artists are gonna end up suffering from it. People are not gonna start subscribing to many different streaming services to be able to freely listen to who ever they wanna listen to. Imagine Premium channels like HBO, Showtime etc. being only available with certain Cable Network.. This would be a complete failure!..
If they go forward with this Exclusively crap, I can see 2015 being the year where Music Pirating came back strong! Good luck with this one Taylor Swift.
 
Yep, this is what is going to making the future of streaming services suck. They always find a way to ruin things.

You want artist A you need to subscribe to service X
You want artist B you need to subscribe to service Y
You want artist C you need to subscribe to service Z

No kidding. Whats makes this especially ironic is that with TV, Apple's goal is supposedly to UN-splinter the world of video content.
 
Dr. Dre works for Apple and Taylor Swift is in cahoots with them. The only other thing I can see being absolutely 100% exclusive to Apple Music is The Beatles. Everything else should be available on every service.
 
Or, yanno, just buy the album. You don't *have* to use a streaming service for your music.

Of course anyone can just go buy the album. I think his point was more that this trend is ultimately a negative for the streaming music services if it only gets worse.


So you've admitted to pirating music?

Unlike Spotify and the like, Apple Music and Beats1 will be seamlessly integrated into millions of devices around the world. No extra apps to install. No extra accounts to create. It will just "be there", like turning on the radio in your home. That transparency is not quite there yet with existing services.

I think you exaggerate the ease in the "seamlessness" over the other providers. You still need to sign up for the account. Installing an app requires maybe one additional step?
 
No kidding. Whats makes this especially ironic is that with TV, Apple's goal is supposedly to UN-splinter the world of video content.

As much as I love Apple, it's because one thing benefits them and one doesn't.
At the end of the day, Apple is still a big corporation, that puts itself 1st.
They just aren't quite a flagrant about it.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.