Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine Discuss State of Streaming and Growth of Apple Music

[Porco]

If they offered high quality lossless audio files then downloads could grow again. A little bit.

I hope all options are available to everyone for as long as possible.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

I actually like the statement from Eddy Cue; he is accepting that many music lovers will never move to subscriptions.

However, they are both missing the elephant in the room: music is dead. That is why downloads are diminishing and will carry on doing so. Sadly, we don't live in a world which values music, nor one which has much talent for creating good music, let alone great music.

I wonder what will happen to the world now? Is music dead for good? Will there be a revival? Will the world end soon? Or do we just have to live in the past for the rest of our lives? I love music, but have come to accept its demise as part of the world in which we live in.

 

[M. Gustave]

If they offered high quality lossless audio files then downloads could grow again. A little bit.

Why would they invest millions into something that only appeals to a tiny minority of people? That's not good business.
[doublepost=1465942975][/doublepost]

However, they are both missing the elephant in the room: music is dead. That is why downloads are diminishing and will carry on doing so. Sadly, we don't live in a world which values music, nor one which has much talent for creating good music, let alone great music.

I wonder what will happen to the world now? Is music dead for good? Will there be a revival? Will the world end soon? Or do we just have to live in the past for the rest of our lives? I love music, but have come to accept its demise as part of the world in which we live in.

Uh, what in the world are you talking about? 'Music is dead'?? What does that even mean?

Maybe you need to spend more time exploring current artists, because there is as much great new music out there as ever. This is why AM is worth it.

 

[Quu]

Apple Music appeals to the masses who just wanna hear the newest top hits and some old favourites. But for people who really care about music (like Steve Jobs) you have to own the music you buy. You don't want a situation where an artist or their label kicks up a stink about money and takes their library away from the service.

Myself that's my fear. I listen to music I got 10 years ago and new music. So I cannot spend £9.99 a month on streaming. I'd rather buy all the songs and be safe in the knowledge they can never be taken away from me.

So I'm glad Apple is going to continue to offer downloads through the iTunes store.

 

[Shirasaki]

Better start buying vynils for your gramophone.

Not having an Internet connection is becoming like not having electricity.

Yet such statement would NEVER change a fact that I can use smartphone as long as it has power, including listen to music, with, or without internet connection.
[doublepost=1465945759][/doublepost]So because of force promotion of Apple Music eddy cue you ***** forces EVERY single user seeing Apple Music interface and desperately trying to play a song from there only find it is not playable??? God **** sake do you know without Apple Music sub, "for you" and "browse" is equal to none?!

Since this is first iOS 10 beta I can live with it. But! If after multiple betas I still cannot remove Apple Music from my stock music app, then, bye bye, Apple Music, bye bye, iOS 10. This is a deal breaker.

 

[ErikGrim]

Beats 1 wasn't mentioned during the keynote? I must have dreamt that whole segment where it was reiterated that it was in 100 countries, the biggest radio station of the world and the calling out of all the artist led shows.

 

[TsMkLg068426]

Because Trent Reznor is a musician who enjoys making music not because of money like other losers such as David Guetta, Avicii, Armin Van Buuren, Tiesto, Taylor Swift and other annoying use artist with 0 talent.

 

[NervousFish2]

It may be the New World Order, but I'm being dragged there kicking and screaming. The big problems with streaming IMO: without an Internet connection, I have no music; if I stop paying a monthly fee, I have no music; if I download music but then stop paying, I have no music. The music is no longer my collection, but Apple's. I'm paying for the privilege just to listen. If it cost $5 a month, I'd consider the drawbacks a reasonable trade-off. But at double that price, it's a non-starter for me.

Shame. Its a good service. And it *does* let you store your content locally for offline viewing.
[doublepost=1465951531][/doublepost]

Shrug. I do it too. Buy and stream, though I have purchased less since subscribing to Apple Music.

Sometimes you gotta buy... i.e., the Prince catalogue (a case where its not available for streaming on Apple Music but available in iTunes)

 

[John.B]

What would killing music downloads would solve for Apple?

Giving costumers away to Pirate Bay?

Not everyone is happy living in a rented house, even if it makes sense economically.

Apple Music is living in a Hotel, is a rented house, but with extras (like the B1 shows and the playlists), people pay mostly for the extras, because for the 99%, YouTube is all they listen to.

Yeah, I don't get it either. It might make financial sense to a bean counter to shut down a factory that manufacturers CDs or cassettes, but there is absolutely no downside to hosting AAC/MP3 file downloads for sale when they have to be hosted for streaming purposes anyway.

 

[G4DPII]

I purchase music and subscribe to streaming services. Streaming allows me access to a lot of music; if I like it enough, I buy it. Even after I buy it I tend to stream so the artist continues to get a little more money.

If we subscribed to a streming service it would be the same here. We'd by the album on CD, Not rent if from Apple though. Hell we have done that in the past 12 months with a radio station in the UK - Planet Rock - heard a lot of decent new stuff and bought albums becasue of it. We don't turn it off when a track or album we bought it played.

That would down right stupid.

 

[Pakaku]

I purchase music and subscribe to streaming services. Streaming allows me access to a lot of music; if I like it enough, I buy it. Even after I buy it I tend to stream so the artist continues to get a little more money.

Most of the money goes back to the streamer service. If you want to support the artist in a more meaningful way, buying things like merchandise directly from them makes a bigger difference.

 

[brueck]

It may be the New World Order, but I'm being dragged there kicking and screaming. The big problems with streaming IMO: without an Internet connection, I have no music; if I stop paying a monthly fee, I have no music; if I download music but then stop paying, I have no music. The music is no longer my collection, but Apple's. I'm paying for the privilege just to listen. If it cost $5 a month, I'd consider the drawbacks a reasonable trade-off. But at double that price, it's a non-starter for me.

You can absolutely listen without an internet connection. Just download a bunch of music when you do have an internet connection...one time.....and then you will always have music....

 

[macs4nw]

It may be the New World Order, but I'm being dragged there kicking and screaming. The big problems with streaming IMO: without an Internet connection, I have no music; if I stop paying a monthly fee, I have no music; if I download music but then stop paying, I have no music. The music is no longer my collection, but Apple's. I'm paying for the privilege just to listen. If it cost $5 a month, I'd consider the drawbacks a reasonable trade-off. But at double that price, it's a non-starter for me.

You are not alone. I realize streaming is growing, and while future generations won't know any better and thus won't miss owning music outright, I sincerely hope it'll be decades before "outright personal music ownership of paid downloaded content", or "content on purchased physical media" for that matter, dry up completely.

I too would rather not have to rely on an internet connection, or someone else's server, to enjoy my preferred content, and I'm willing to pay for that privilege.

 

[John.B]

You can absolutely listen without an internet connection. Just download a bunch of music when you do have an internet connection...one time.....and then you will always have music....

Only until your 9.99/month subscription runs out.

 

[tx2005]

Honestly, I made my peace with streaming services a long time ago. I've been spending $10/month on Spotify since 2012, which is as much as I spend on lunch, and I listen to dozens of hours of music a month. It's a much better alternative than mass pirating, which I have to imagine is greatly reduced these days.

I subscribe to a number of services (Hulu, Netflix, etc...) and music streaming is by far the best value for what you get in my opinion.

 

[CFreymarc]

Imagine, Apple branded vynil records with a link to its streaming counterpart. What would Sir Paul say about that?

 

[Loge]

I've been spending $10/month on Spotify since 2012, which is as much as I spend on lunch

Where can you buy lunch for $10/month?

 

[Ries]

Where can you buy lunch for $10/month?

America

http://www.feedingamerica.org/take-action/campaigns/gam/

$1 = 10 meals, $10 = 100 meals! (according to them)

"Every dollar you donate helps provide 10 meals to men, women and children facing hunger in our country."

 

[iSee]

...and as a matter of fact, they all (never specified who)...

Click through to read the interview. "They" are the record labels and publishers concerned with the decline in download sales that Billboard refers to in the question Eddy is answering.

 

[MacsRgr8]

Better start buying vynils for your gramophone.

Not having an Internet connection is becoming like not having electricity.

Hmm.. in a plane? In a foreign country charging the hell outta you for 10 MB?

No, once internet is literally everywhere and "free" (i.e. you are paying a normal fee) you will be right.
ATM: I have portable electricity (battery), but no portable affordable internet.

Maybe in 2030. When everything is IP v6. No more Wifi. Everyone 6G 10 Gb/s data on every device. Flat fee via Apple ID.

 

[Mike MA]

Shrug. I do it too. Buy and stream, though I have purchased less since subscribing to Apple Music.

Well, this was not the topic of our discussion if you read a bit more careful. I think there's a general consensus about what you stated by the way.

 

[jhoff8600]

Apple Music appeals to the masses who just wanna hear the newest top hits and some old favourites. But for people who really care about music (like Steve Jobs) you have to own the music you buy. You don't want a situation where an artist or their label kicks up a stink about money and takes their library away from the service.

Myself that's my fear. I listen to music I got 10 years ago and new music. So I cannot spend £9.99 a month on streaming. I'd rather buy all the songs and be safe in the knowledge they can never be taken away from me.

So I'm glad Apple is going to continue to offer downloads through the iTunes store.

I realize there are holes/ways around this argument based on relaxed DRM restrictions in recent years, but this point is still valid compared to traditional ownership:

Wait until your $900 phone or your $2000 computer dies, and then find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you die, and want to leave the valuable things you have collected in your life to your kin, and find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you hit a financial rough patch, or the next great depression, and you need to liquidate your assets to survive, and find out how your music ownership is taken from you.

Wait until you switch platforms, and find out how your music is taken from you,

Wait until your $900 phone or your $2000 computer become unsupported by new software, and find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you want to loan a cathartic album to your suffering friend, and find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you want a higher quality music experience, and find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you give/sell music you no no longer listen to, and find out how your music ownership is taken from you.

Owning something digital, is owning the rights to something, not owning the thing itself. There is a fundamental difference that big tech would like you to forget about. This logic is even much more important when it comes to books. For many people, a book is a precious thing, and joy is derived from sharing, giving, selling, and inheriting to others. Say bye bye to the timeless treasure that are books.

I for one think there needs to be digital rights legislation enacted to protect americans from purchasing things, that they can't actually own, even thought they think they do. Hundreds of pages of iTunes terms and conditions doesn't absolve big tech of this issue.

I normally refrain from grumpy replies, but this one is important to me.

 

[Quu]

I realize there are holes/ways around this argument based on relaxed DRM restrictions in recent years, but this point is still valid compared to traditional ownership:

Wait until your $900 phone or your $2000 computer dies, and then find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you die, and want to leave the valuable things you have collected in your life to your kin, and find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you hit a financial rough patch, or the next great depression, and you need to liquidate your assets to survive, and find out how your music ownership is taken from you.

Wait until you switch platforms, and find out how your music is taken from you,

Wait until your $900 phone or your $2000 computer become unsupported by new software, and find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you want to loan a cathartic album to your suffering friend, and find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you want a higher quality music experience, and find out how your music is taken from you.

Wait until you give/sell music you no no longer listen to, and find out how your music ownership is taken from you.

Owning something digital, is owning the rights to something, not owning the thing itself. There is a fundamental difference that big tech would like you to forget about. This logic is even much more important when it comes to books. For many people, a book is a precious thing, and joy is derived from sharing, giving, selling, and inheriting to others. Say bye bye to the timeless treasure that are books.

I for one think there needs to be digital rights legislation enacted to protect americans from purchasing things, that they can't actually own, even thought they think they do. Hundreds of pages of iTunes terms and conditions doesn't absolve big tech of this issue.

I normally refrain from grumpy replies, but this one is important to me.

All my music is completely DRM free and in my country it is legal to transfer your music rights to someone else, same for digital games and software. And I backup my computers to make sure my music will never be lost.

Lastly, I do not buy my music on iTunes. All my music is in FLAC the highest quality currently possible and easily converted into any other format. What other users choose to do with their purchasing (iTunes or not) is upto them.

What you said is only really valid if you live in some backwards country with no rights and don't backup anything (aka being a very silly person).