YouTube is long overdue. Many people already use the website/app to stream music.
My question is why so many companies are piling into this. Is streaming music that important?
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.
Facebook Planning Music Streaming Service to Compete With Apple Music and Others [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
YouTube is long overdue. Many people already use the website/app to stream music.
My question is why so many companies are piling into this. Is streaming music that important?
It's Facebook's plans to build on this with a Spotify-style audio streaming service that are making waves within the music industry, even though the launch date and specifics of the business model and payout formula have yet to be nailed down.
No business model, no launch date, no pay specifics. Must be pretty tiny waves.
In other news, FB has plans to build a Star Trek-like transporter service that's making waves within the airline industry.
No business model, no launch date, no pay specifics. Must be pretty tiny waves.
In other news, FB has plans to build a Star Trek-like transporter service that's making waves within the airline industry.
I hear that Twitter is coming out with a music streaming service.
Songs are limited to 140 notes, and the average tempo must be 140 bpm.
Songs are limited to 140 notes, and the average tempo must be 140 bpm.
I wonder if this streaming service will offer double speed like for podcasts?
You could listen to twice as much music, then.
You could listen to twice as much music, then.
it's shocking to me how people are shunning facebook
they're one of the most exciting companies in tech
they're incredibly eager to latch on to whatever is new and happening, to constantly evolve and move forward
they refuse to just "stay facebook" because they know that in this industry, consumers will flock to whatever is newer and better, there is very little brand loyalty outside of a few hardware guys.
they made the best social network there ever was. they do advertising incredibly well and have become insanely profitable. when new startups begin to latch on to their customer base, they buy those companies, learn from them, and expand them. instead of just folding instagram and whatsapp into facebook, they let them exist as separate entities and make them better. there's no doubt that instagram, especially with its latest update, has become incredibly better at being instagram than ever before.
and then there's oculus. facebook is clearly balls to the wall looking at the future.
they want to release a streaming service? great. more competition is better for everyone. even if they fail at it, maybe it will give the industry something to learn from. spotify's only advantage right now is how wonderfully social it is, and facebook is the only player right now positioned to take them on at their own game.
they're one of the most exciting companies in tech
they're incredibly eager to latch on to whatever is new and happening, to constantly evolve and move forward
they refuse to just "stay facebook" because they know that in this industry, consumers will flock to whatever is newer and better, there is very little brand loyalty outside of a few hardware guys.
they made the best social network there ever was. they do advertising incredibly well and have become insanely profitable. when new startups begin to latch on to their customer base, they buy those companies, learn from them, and expand them. instead of just folding instagram and whatsapp into facebook, they let them exist as separate entities and make them better. there's no doubt that instagram, especially with its latest update, has become incredibly better at being instagram than ever before.
and then there's oculus. facebook is clearly balls to the wall looking at the future.
they want to release a streaming service? great. more competition is better for everyone. even if they fail at it, maybe it will give the industry something to learn from. spotify's only advantage right now is how wonderfully social it is, and facebook is the only player right now positioned to take them on at their own game.
IIRC, Facebook is looking to share ad revenue with those who upload videos directly to their service. They have been pushing hosted videos more than YouTube links as well.
I disagree with the bulk of this. I can see how from an investors standpoint someone might like the future of FB (valuation metrics aside) but from a consumer standpoint I don't see much to like. At one point FB as a social network was cool. It had a simple, elegant design, and it was useful. Here are a few of the biggest issues with Facebook:
1. Change the news feed back to where it displays the most recent posts in order. This is obvious. There is no need for FB to try and figure out who or what I think is important because I've already done the curation when I accepted and sent friend requests. If I don't want to unfriend a person but I also don't want to view their posts then the unfollow button is there.
2. Add a better system for grouping friends. One of the biggest issues with Facebook and it's popularity with younger people is that everyone is on it. When I first got Facebook it was college only and I was in college. I could post practically anything and only my friends would see it. Now people have to be so politically correct because they're worried their mom, grandma, 12 year old nephew, church leader, etc, etc. will read it. It's really diminished the value of what is shared because people are afraid to share anything edgy. Because of this people have flocked to other networks like Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter. Basically Facebook needs to change it's core structure to where it is easier to share things with just those you want to share it with. Google+ attempted something like this with circles but obviously that place is a wasteland.
3. Remove games. I know some people use these but for the bulk of users it's just a major annoyance.
I could continue for a while but those are the major three. To add to this I don't mind FB selling advertising and making a profit but FB is one of those companies, like Google, where I realize that I'm the product being sold. So while I don't think they are particularly unethical I do worry sometimes about privacy with them. The last thing I'll say is that Facebook may be balls to the wall looking towards the future but that doesn't change the fact that outside of their social network they haven't really done anything else. It's kinda like Google working on robots, driverless cars, Google Glass, etc. All of this is cool and it's easy to get hyped up about but when we really look at what Google has accomplished we wind up with Search and Maps. Facebook is similar.
I think you hit the point, albeit not quite square on the head (Taylor Swift not on local radio? Do you only listen to NPR?). At age 45 now, I grew up REFUSING to listen to anything my parents listened to (Neil Diamond, John Denver...I wouldn't touch that stuff back then with a ten foot pole). When I hit my teens I taped a lot off stuff off the radio and collected lots of cassettes with what little cash I had. Starting in the late 80's, when I had my own job, I found I had a little more money and could buy CDs, but I didn't really have the money or parental approval for a CD player or stereo until college. That's when the collection grew tremendously, and it was truly all about the collection. Now that I'm older, in recent decades I'm no longer collecting but find myself enjoying much more in the way of classic music, "oldies", and um...no-not John Denver. Still won't go there. But in any case, kids today have it in reverse. they have all the equipment to play everything, but the discovery of music is now entirely up to them - they aren't being force-fed what their parents listened to as a starting point, because they've got their headphones on. As a result music is much more about self discovery. And there's only so many ways to discover things without any external influence, which seems to be why the curated lists of Apple hold so much promise.
I am tired of all these huge companies (Spotify, Apple Music, Facebook Music, etc etc) climbing over each other in this latest "we must all be streamers!" goldrush. Launching a streaming service is great for those companies, but awful for musicians. You're teaching people that music is something to be streamed for dirt cheap, and the musicians in turn get only like 5% compared to what they would have gotten from album sales. As an example, Avicii's Wake Me Up was one of the top 10 most played songs on Spotify but only earned like $5000 in streaming royalties in a whole year. If you'd had a fraction of the listeners buy it, i.e. 1 million single sales at $0.99, then they would have had $999,999... Does nobody else see a problem with widespread streaming? Rich companies get richer, while musicians are forced on the road to do live shows and sell merchandise as the only viable income, which in turn requires that they're even famous enough to get gigs. Geeze this sucks so much. What's next? Programs that automatically compose music, thus killing music forever? These are sad times...
When you download a song today, Apple pays the owner $0.70 (70% of $0.99). When you stream a song after June 30, Apple pays the owner $0.015. That's 1.5 cents. And that extremely low amount is already 3x higher than what the notoriously cheap Shittify pays. A listener would have to play the song nearly 50 times to make up for what the artist would have earned from a single download.
There was a reason that Taylor Swift decided to go to Apple Music after all: She knows how much the royalties suck and that she'd earn far, far less than direct album sales and that her music is being devalued (and she said so herself). But she has enough money to not *need* album sales anymore. She decided the promotion of being available for streaming on launch day was worth the huge loss in income. But for future up-and-coming musicians, they're going to have a hell of a tough time, since they can no longer expect to sell songs on iTunes. It'll all be streaming for fixed, dirt-cheap prices... And soon we'll see those streaming prices approach zero, as all services eventually do... Good job, huge corporations killing art once again...
Another example is Pharell getting $2700 for 43 million plays of his "Happy" single: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/poor-songwriters-how-hidden-costs-are-butchering-their-income/ - and it shows some math for Spotify which reveals that out of the 9.99 EUR premium membership, only 0.62 EUR ($0.64) make it out to artists for splitting across every song that the member listened to in that month. That's ridiculous!
The only hope is that the companies and congressmen representing artists win this battle. They're lobbying to increase the payments for streaming music. Who cares if people have to pay higher monthly fees? They're set way too low already. Unlimited music for Spotify's $10 a month leaves almost nothing to the artists. Here's the info regarding the ongoing legal battle: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ic-streaming-business-amidst-royalty-dispute/
Spotify is the biggest culprit, for being the sleezeballs that gouged musicians from day 1, and they are solely responsible for the current insanely-low market price for streaming music. Every new service had to match their spit-in-the-face prices...
I guess the *only* good part of Facebook and Apple's entries into the streaming market, is that it will piss off musicians even more and will lead to either a total collapse of indie music, or a reform to proper market values that allow musicians to make a living like they used to be able to before these greedy corporations screwed everything up. If nothing changes, then this is the end of indie music.
I am sure that if nothing changes, musicians will simply refuse to sign streaming agreements. Corporations can't steal the product (the music) without consent. So if lawmakers can't fix this complete rape situation, then musicians will simply reach a point where they all get together and pull their music out. Of course, by that time people may have already been trained to stop paying for music. Every new market has its teething problems, but this is the most ridiculous greed situation in the history of mankind. A new generation of pirating freeloaders combined with a greedy, underpaying industry. This is a recipe for disaster for all musicians, even famous ones (Pharell's $2700 compensation for 43 million streams)... Something will happen, that's for sure.
TL;DR: Corporations, please get your disgusting, greedy d#cks out of musicians' a$$es, thanks. If you're going to train consumers to stop paying for music and start streaming instead, then you must fairly compensate the people making the godd#mn product you're selling! This is insane and can't be allowed to go on!
When you download a song today, Apple pays the owner $0.70 (70% of $0.99). When you stream a song after June 30, Apple pays the owner $0.015. That's 1.5 cents. And that extremely low amount is already 3x higher than what the notoriously cheap Shittify pays. A listener would have to play the song nearly 50 times to make up for what the artist would have earned from a single download.
There was a reason that Taylor Swift decided to go to Apple Music after all: She knows how much the royalties suck and that she'd earn far, far less than direct album sales and that her music is being devalued (and she said so herself). But she has enough money to not *need* album sales anymore. She decided the promotion of being available for streaming on launch day was worth the huge loss in income. But for future up-and-coming musicians, they're going to have a hell of a tough time, since they can no longer expect to sell songs on iTunes. It'll all be streaming for fixed, dirt-cheap prices... And soon we'll see those streaming prices approach zero, as all services eventually do... Good job, huge corporations killing art once again...
Another example is Pharell getting $2700 for 43 million plays of his "Happy" single: http://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/poor-songwriters-how-hidden-costs-are-butchering-their-income/ - and it shows some math for Spotify which reveals that out of the 9.99 EUR premium membership, only 0.62 EUR ($0.64) make it out to artists for splitting across every song that the member listened to in that month. That's ridiculous!
The only hope is that the companies and congressmen representing artists win this battle. They're lobbying to increase the payments for streaming music. Who cares if people have to pay higher monthly fees? They're set way too low already. Unlimited music for Spotify's $10 a month leaves almost nothing to the artists. Here's the info regarding the ongoing legal battle: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...ic-streaming-business-amidst-royalty-dispute/
Spotify is the biggest culprit, for being the sleezeballs that gouged musicians from day 1, and they are solely responsible for the current insanely-low market price for streaming music. Every new service had to match their spit-in-the-face prices...
I guess the *only* good part of Facebook and Apple's entries into the streaming market, is that it will piss off musicians even more and will lead to either a total collapse of indie music, or a reform to proper market values that allow musicians to make a living like they used to be able to before these greedy corporations screwed everything up. If nothing changes, then this is the end of indie music.
I am sure that if nothing changes, musicians will simply refuse to sign streaming agreements. Corporations can't steal the product (the music) without consent. So if lawmakers can't fix this complete rape situation, then musicians will simply reach a point where they all get together and pull their music out. Of course, by that time people may have already been trained to stop paying for music. Every new market has its teething problems, but this is the most ridiculous greed situation in the history of mankind. A new generation of pirating freeloaders combined with a greedy, underpaying industry. This is a recipe for disaster for all musicians, even famous ones (Pharell's $2700 compensation for 43 million streams)... Something will happen, that's for sure.
TL;DR: Corporations, please get your disgusting, greedy d#cks out of musicians' a$$es, thanks. If you're going to train consumers to stop paying for music and start streaming instead, then you must fairly compensate the people making the godd#mn product you're selling! This is insane and can't be allowed to go on!
Last edited:
I may not have worded it well but the sentence about Taylor Swift was to point out that she is always on the radio while a group like Vampire Weekend is never on the radio.
As for the rest of it, I absolutely agree. I think it's a multitude of things though. It's absolutely about discovery. I mean it's great that older people have lived and they're already aware of classic bands, but I'm 28 and I'm still in the process of retracing older music (while keeping up with new music). Lately I've been listening to a lot of The Cars and David Bowie. It's doubtful I would have just went into a store and bought all of their CDs but streaming allows me to discover the artists that were before my time. A lot of people who stream will also keep collections and eventually go purchase their favorites.
But it's not just about discovery... It's also about the sheer amount and variety of music out there today. I grew up in the "shuffle" generation and it's not uncommon to hear my iTunes play Elton John, followed by Jay Z, Modest Mouse, Nirvana, George Strait, and so on. What I'm trying to say is that it's not just about discovering the "genre" or "taste" that I like for self discovery and that the sheer amount of music I've been exposed and had access to has made me appreciate all of it.
For me it can sometimes be frustrating and I'll give an example. About two years ago I was having a conversation with a group of people in their mid 20s. They all wanted to go see this EDM artist Tommy Trash, and no offense to any big EDM fans but I don't find much value in his work. A few minutes later we got to talking about an upcoming festival that Elton John was a headliner at. Of the 10 or so people only me and one other person said we'd like to see Elton live. These people were excited to see Tommy Trash but could care less about Elton John. It blew my mind. About six months ago I was with my parents at a Mardi Gras ball and we were playing a bunch of 80s hits. Some Michael Jackson, Eddie Money, The Outfield, and so on. After a few 80s songs we played some songs mostly from the early to mid 2000s, Mr. Brightside, some MGMT, and Phoenix. All the songs played were fantastic jams but my parents and the older crowd we were with just couldn't appreciate it.
You are aware that Spotify loses money right? They aren't profitable. The thing is, it's hard to get consumers to pay for music when it's all available for free online. I'm not saying that everything is perfect now, but I don't think the whole "greedy corporations" thing really works here.
They should just start reporting the companies that are not planning on offering a music streaming service. It might be easier.
I am happy as hell to hear that Spotify is losing money. I hope they collapse.
But it's not hard to get consumers to pay for music. The convenience of iTunes has been working great until streaming took off. People used to search for and buy every album they liked. Enough people did that to allow artists to make a living.
If streaming *continues* to grow at dirt-cheap prices, *then* it will be impossible to get people to pay for music.
That's why all artists are now talking about how streaming is seriously destroying their careers and livelihoods.
I haven't been on Farcebook for at least 3 years. This music service isn't going to bring me back.
I think you're speaking from a very narrow perspective.
A chronological feed makes absolutely no sense for most users. When there are thousands of friends involved, facebook's algorithms help leverage the stories they think will be most interesting to you, and for the most part, it works. Especially for older people who are less tech savvy, people who probably don't log in every day, etc.
Think about how news is delivered. The NYT doesn't give you a chronological feed of stories as they're written. Everything is curated. And since facebook began curating, more people began clicking on articles and liking articles and sharing better.
Grouping friends - sure. Messages has helped here a lot. This is where I have groups related to specific events or circles of friends and it's effective. But not all the way there.
Games - you're crazy. Do you know how much money facebook makes here? Do you know how many people use facebook just for the games? I've turned off notifications from candy crush, so my annoyance with the problem is gone. I suggest you do the same if that's what you're looking for.
I get everything you're saying, but you're not looking at the big picture, you're looking at it through your specific needs. This shows there's room for a more focused social network to emerge, for all the reasons you listed.
As far as a mass social system for most common internet users go, this is what facebook caters to, this is what makes them money, this is what makes it so ubiquitous.
you know a lot more about this than most people here, me included.
please enlighten me on one thing: i've heard that the landcape of the music industry has changed, revenue comes in from show, merchandise, concerts and festivals rather than album sales.
it's been pitched to me in the past that streaming services are a way to discover new bands that people eventually pay to see in person, which is where everyone makes their money now.
sort of how best buy used to lose money on cd sales with the idea that people would buy other things that have high margins in the store.
you're losing money to get people to enter, in the case of streaming, the artist hands out their music for free, basically, with the hopes of nurturing fans that will bring in revenue at a live show at a later date.
is this horribly wrong? some truth here?
You know what, they're competing with Google too. Any competitor that challenge's Google's monopoly on the internet is a good thing. They may be competing with Apple too, but Apple's main category is still hardware.
That is completely correct. It started softly, with artists sharing their music on YouTube for free in return for promotion which in turn lead to iTunes sales (you can link your video to stores so that listeners can buy the album). It worked well.
Then Spotify came along and slowly grew to the point where listeners started expecting free, ad-supported music. Spotify was still a fringe market, but it had tens of millions of listeners and did enough damage (to the direct-sale market) to cause many artists to try streaming their music there. Everybody noticed they were getting almost zero revenue compared to when they used to sell the music.
Musicians saw less and less direct album sales and worried that streaming would just continue to grow and kill their ability to make a living. Hence the advice that started being passed around: "Use streaming and YouTube as promotion, and make your salary from live shows and merchandise at your tours and website."
And then... streaming grew even more and Apple jumped into the fray, and indie artists were scared to death when they realized that the shift from downloads to streaming is truly coming at full force now. To say that artists are panicking is an understatement. Everybody is seeing huge losses of income, and that's what has prompted congressmen and music industry people to try to get some laws passed that value music again. Meanwhile, the streaming companies are fighting against having to share more revenue. So there is a war ramping up. These are interesting times.
Many artists are unable to do live shows but used to make a living from sales. Those people are the majority of indie musicians and they are getting totally screwed.
Pretty much every artist out there has considered just dropping all streaming and doing regular iTunes and direct sales from their website, but that's incredily risky since direct sales are a rapidly dying market thanks to streaming re-training people to the idea of having a "pick your own songs" radio station at all times.
My prediction is that direct sales will completely vanish within 5 years, with only a few fringe audiophiles still buying music (for lossless quality audio downloads). Everyone else will enjoy the greater convenience that streaming enabled.
As for revenues from streaming, there are 3 possibilities:
* Laws are passed, valuing music higher again. That would allow musicians to make a living from streaming, the way they used to make a living from sales.
* Streaming prices stay the same, thus killing off many new, small musicians who have to get regular jobs and can't devote their time to music instead. And no, they can't just join a big label; those glory days are over too. Major labels don't pay much anymore, thanks to the overall decline in music sales.
* Or, musicians are finally fed up and boycott streaming until the companies change. This scenario is actually quite likely, if things continue going downhill. Right now, streaming companies are practically stealing the music for free, and musicians are understandably very upset that fat corporations are taking the revenue from their work.
So yes, merchandise and concerts are the only serious remaining sources of income. But if streaming services simply doubled their prices ($20 a month for unlimited access to music is still dirt cheap; in the past you only got 2 albums for that price), and directed more of the share to the musicians (a 70/30 split), then this would all be a non-issue and all musicians would love to stream everything.
The issue isn't streaming. It's these greedy corporations stealing from the musicians. I hope the various law proposals go through, so that we put an end to this insanity. Either way, the battle has just begun, and I don't think the musicians will just continue bending over forever. An entire artform is threatened to the core by greedy corporations. These are interesting times...
Last edited:
On the other side I stopped buying iTunes music as long they don't allow to move between (own) accounts. Once TC took over he mentioned (I think to remember) that they are looking into it. Not happen.
Plus for me playing my favorite songs more then 50 times is not a big deal. I'm sure I do. So actually good for the artists. Plus all those artists I never would find without some good suggestions. They get even more because of it.
If they really pay 1.5c for each song I worry more about Apple.
10$ is good for 660 songs in a month. I'm sure I will be over it.
Cos this market wasn't saturated enough before Apple Music
It always pays to read the first post of a thread.
Oops. Can't believe I missed that.It always pays to read the first post of a thread.