Frank Ocean Releases Visual Album 'Endless' Exclusively on Apple Music

[Zirel]

They can. Third parties already do it for you: http://movetoapple.com/ or https://freeyourmusic.com/

What do you mean by "it would become a game of cat and mouse"? If it ever did get to the point where Spotify was loosing popularity massively in favour of Apple Music, a tool from Apple to import Spotify playlists would make things easier for users. Spotify could set up one in retaliation but in this hypothetical future, not many people would notice.

Do you know if those sites are legal?

Don't you think that if Apple did that, Spotify wouldn't try to impede that?

It would become a game of cat and mouse (if not a legal battle too), because Spotify would be changing the APIs and Apple's tool would stop working.

 

[desmond2046]

I can't believe this is real!! I had to hit myself so hard to make sure I'm not in a dream!

 

[Alenore]

To quote Tim Minchin, "Oh no wait, that's absolute ********". Apple pay for users' free trials. As far as the artists are concerned, there is no free trial. If a song is streamed on Apple Music, they are paid for it.

This wasn't their intention at the beginning, but they u-turned on it so fast, it was hardly Big Evil Apple trying to rip off the music industry.

Yes, they planned everything, struck deals and even had a press release with this intention. But I guess they just changed their mind in a night, right?
No, what they did was trying, and when they saw they wouldn't get away with it, they fixed it.

 

[oldmacs]

This wasn't their intention at the beginning, but they u-turned on it so fast, it was hardly Big Evil Apple trying to rip off the music industry.

It does demonstrate that Apple didn't really care till they were caught red handed. Apple are not some amazingly saint like protector of artists, they're just as exploitative as the others, and tried to be more so until they were caught red handed.
[doublepost=1471599268][/doublepost]

Yes, they planned everything, struck deals and even had a press release with this intention. But I guess they just changed their mind in a night, right?
No, what they did was trying, and when they saw they wouldn't get away with it, they fixed it.

Exactly.

 

[thekeyring]

Do you know if those sites are legal?

I would assume it's just moving data around. If someone says to me "I have x song on Spotify" I can open up Apple Music for them, and add that song to their library. These companies have built apps that do that automatically.

Don't you think that if Apple did that, Spotify wouldn't try to impede that?

Probably, but at that point (again, just thinking out loud about a possible future) it would be them clutching at straws.

 

[Mike MA]

Don't sign for the wrong music services that exploit artists, and you'll be fine.

Spotify and YouTube are the cancer of music industry. Even more so than piracy. You could say that "nobody forces artists to go there", but when they have the market in their hands, you have to.

I just believe that Apple would have loved to have offered the exact same business model as Spotify does, but the music business denied to do so. Just remember the increase of the royalties after the Taylor Swift campaign. This was not done voluntarily, but from the pressure created. At the end Apple is a business company seeking for profit like anybody else, which is fair enough.

 

[S.B.G]

Apple is getting quite the collection of exclusive content, that's for sure.

Indeed they are.

I wonder if they have a way to see if their exclusivity deals provide any ROI with new subscribers to Apple Music or not. For me, these exclusivity deals don't amount to enough for me to justify switching my streaming services.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I just believe that Apple would have loved to have offered the exact same business model as Spotify does, but the music business denied to do so. Just remember the increase of the royalties after the Taylor Swift campaign. This was not done voluntarily, but from the pressure created. At the end Apple is a business company seeking for profit like anybody else, which is fair enough.

Spotify doesn't have a business model

Well... they do... but it doesn't work very well.

Spotify can't scale. Even when they add more users... it ends up costing them more money.

It's that darn free tier that is killing them. Yet they keep it.

The record labels hate the free tier... Spotify loses money on it... so why are they still offering it?

 

[oldmacs]

The record labels hate the free tier... Spotify loses money on it... so why are they still offering it?

Its there to stop piracy.

 

[navaira]

If only Apple exclusively fixed their mess of an Android app.

I've spent the last two years waiting for Frank's album and it's... eh. I hope the real thing will be better and this is just some demoes put together loosely (same as his staircase).

Did anybody notice the Samsung Galaxy reference in the last song? How... random.

 

[Michael Scrip]

Its there to stop piracy.

That's a noble task... but eventually Spotify's investors are gonna want their money back.

Hell... they just raised another billion dollars a few months ago.

In total they have taken 2.56 BILLION DOLLARS in a dozen funding rounds over 8 years... and they still haven't made a profit.

What kind of business plan is that?

 

[navaira]

Out of curiosity, how much profit is Apple Music making?

 

[Michael Scrip]

Out of curiosity, how much profit is Apple Music making?

I don't think they've said... but Apple's revenue for "services" have increased quite a bit lately. I'm sure someone is trying to figure out the profit for Apple Music.

I would be shocked if they are running Apple Music at a loss though. I don't think Apple would even get into this business unless it was sustainable. I'd say they are profitable.

You have to pay to use Apple Music... $10 a month for a single user or $15 a month for families up to 6 users.

With 15 million users... including single users and families... Apple is bringing in somewhere between $37 million a month and $150 million a month.

Surely it doesn't cost that much just to run Apple Music.

I assume Apple designed it to be profitable.

 

[navaira]

I, on the contrary, think Apple Music is run at loss with the express goal of getting all other services out of the market. I simply don't see why Spotify would be operating at huge loss and Apple Music with all its exclusives (they don't come for free) wouldn't. Apple can afford to put a billion dollars into AM. Tidal, Spotify, Deezer etc. don't have that possibility.

 

[Keane16]

I, on the contrary, think Apple Music is run at loss with the express goal of getting all other services out of the market. I simply don't see why Spotify would be operating at huge loss and Apple Music with all its exclusives (they don't come for free) wouldn't. Apple can afford to put a billion dollars into AM. Tidal, Spotify, Deezer etc. don't have that possibility.

It's possible that Apple Music is making a loss. But the Apple Music business model isn't comparable Spotify - their free tier makes a fraction of their revenue.

"Not surprisingly, the biggest contributors to Spotify’s financial successes were paying subscribers — 28 million (as of the end of 2015) paying subscribers generated $1.94 of Spotify’s $2.2 billion in revenue last year, with ad sales from 61 million free users generating just $220 million."

Spotify made a loss $193 million in 2015. I wonder if they would have made a profit if they didn't have a free tier as I imagine the subscribers subsidise the free tier. If the answer is yes, then it's possible Apple Music may not be running at a loss.

 

[navaira]

I don't know. Partly because Apple doesn't disclose figures. But there's also the matter of unfair competition (I wonder why Apple weren't forced to allow people to choose the streaming app yet? Remembering when Microsoft had to stop forcing Exploder on users?) – Apple Music comes with iOS devices, so it's going to be the natural first choice for most people. Spotify have to do something to drag people into their ecosystem, gone are the days when it was enough for them to exist.

I like competition because hopefully it forces Spotify to get their **** together when it comes to the Android app. But then Apple Music isn't exactly better. I'd like one of them to become truly great, not even asking for perfect. But so far Spotify has a few irritating bugs and AM is next to useless. And the exclusives are just irritating. There is no good comparison because streaming services are quite revolutionary new, but I'd say it's a bit as if you bought a CD, brought it home and discovered you can't play it because you don't own a Panasonic CD player.

So – I want to have Apple Music because it's the best there is, not because it has an exclusive Frank Ocean's Woodworking Workshop 101 video.

 

[nameischarles]

I didn't know this was exclusive to Apple Music, I watched it on YouTube today while at work haha

I wish Apple Music had a web based player like Spotify, I would use Apple Music more but my work has blocked access to iTunes.

I have a free 12 month Apple Music subscription due to my network carrier, don't think I'll renew it though once it's up.

 

[Jmausmuc]

But Apple pays, Spotify is the pirate here, the amount they pay to artists while non-premium users listen is laughable.

Do you understand that artists only get 70% FROM WHATEVER the advertisers decide to pay? If an advertiser decides to pay $1, they get $0.70, if they de

Sounds a lot like the App Store. Lol.

 

[Zirel]

Sounds a lot like the App Store. Lol.

Sounds a lot unlike the AppStore.

In the AppStore, the producer sets the sale price.

In Spotify, Spotify sets the sale price and it's their way or the highway.

 

[navaira]

I didn't know this was exclusive to Apple Music, I watched it on YouTube today while at work haha

If it's that playlist posted in the thread earlier, it's not the real thing.

 

[Jmausmuc]

Sounds a lot unlike the AppStore.

In the AppStore, the producer sets the sale price.

In Spotify, Spotify sets the sale price and it's their way or the highway.

Don't sign with Spotify than. Nobody is forcing anybody.
The Beatles weren't on iTunes for a really long time as well.

 

[marty1980]

Exclusiveness is Ruining the music industry

Its not ruining the music industry, but it doesn't make any sense for an artist do go exclusive. Doing so prevents your music from growing beyond the user-base of whatever service they go exclusive to.

Maybe smaller, independent artists benefit from a period of exclusivity they get a deal where Apple promotes them giving them visibility they otherwise would t have had.

Big artists don't need exclusive deals. I don't understand why big artists have signed on for it. Kanye West is f*ing idiot in many ways and his exclusive idea for Tidal was a huge failure.

Exclusivity is not a good thing I. The music industry where reaching mass amounts of people is important to the success of an album.

 

[Michael Scrip]

I, on the contrary, think Apple Music is run at loss with the express goal of getting all other services out of the market. I simply don't see why Spotify would be operating at huge loss and Apple Music with all its exclusives (they don't come for free) wouldn't. Apple can afford to put a billion dollars into AM. Tidal, Spotify, Deezer etc. don't have that possibility.

Spotify has 100 million users... but only 30 million users pay for it. And the ads on the free tier don't even come close to covering their costs. That's why they operate at a loss. And they're still acting like a startup accepting billions in venture capital with no signs of becoming profitable even after 8 years.

Sure... it's possible that Apple Music operates at a loss... but it seems unlikely since they don't have a free tier dragging them down like Spotify. Every one of Apple Music's users pays to use the service... there are no freeloaders.

The only question is how much does it cost for them to run Apple Music compared to the money that is coming in. I would imagine they designed it to be profitable from the beginning.

As for Apple trying to get the other services out of the market... Spotify wasn't profitable before Apple Music... and they aren't profitable after Apple Music either.

They were in trouble before Apple even entered this market.

Another theory... perhaps ALL music streaming services lose money. Spotify, Apple Music, Google Music, Amazon Prime Music, Microsoft Groove Music, Tidal, Deezer, Pandora, etc.

But only the major players like Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft can afford to lose money just to please their customers.

That's another possibility.

But I honestly don't think Apple would do anything to lose money on purpose. I could be wrong though.

 

[navaira]

Sure... it's possible that Apple Music operates at a loss... but it seems unlikely since they don't have a free tier dragging them down like Spotify. Every one of Apple Music's users pays to use the service... there are no freeloaders.

Trials though.

Another theory... perhaps ALL music streaming services lose money. Spotify, Apple Music, Google Music, Amazon Prime Music, Microsoft Groove Music, Tidal, Deezer, Pandora, etc.

But only the major players like Apple, Google, Amazon and Microsoft can afford to lose money just to please their customers.

I think that it's a bit like with smartwatches – before Apple came into the market there was gossip going around that they're planning to do a smartwatch and suddenly every tech company had one without necessarily knowing what and how it should do. Everybody seems to agree streaming is the Next Big Thing and they basically hope to be among the last ones standing. Where Apple has the biggest chance because of having pretty much infinite money.

I had no idea that Microsoft Groove Music even existed. How many subscribers do they have? Four?

 

[thefourthpope]

Exclusiveness is Ruining the music industry

I genuinely don't understand this statement. Can you be more specific?

Do you mean it's cutting into industry profits? Making it harder to listen to certain albums (a very small percentage, it seems, and so far at least only from major artists)? Reducing the quality of the music being created and released? Impeding artist-fan connections? Lessening the scope or impact of live shows?