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.
Jimmy Iovine Says Apple Music Would Have '400 Million' Listeners If It Had a Free Version Like Spotify
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
This! The problem isn't iTunes, although it has turned into a bloated mess. The problem is the shockingly poor design of iCloud Music Library. It has screwed up my library multiple times. I'm never going back. It's utterly terrible.
Then why are you here on these forums, or many other areas of the internet that generate either all or part of their revenue from adverts?
Oh, double standards? I see.
This. I will give AM a try once it is guaranteed ring fenced from my own music collection.
We'll see how all this shakes out. The entertainment industry has been gouging customers for years. In particular the music industry phased out singles (I've still got close to 1,000 45RPM singles I bought through the mid '80s) and drove to offering full CDs exclusively. CDs cost less to manufacture than vinyl records yet the music companies charged almost double the price.
For quite a few years during the transition from records to CDs you had the album in vinyl for $8 - $10 with 45RPM singes priced at $1 while the CD with the exact same songs was $15 - $18. If you were lucky you could get a CD with four or more remixed versions of a particular song for $5, but there was nothing digital comparable to the A side/B side single. The executives insisted on limiting what choices the consumer was presented with the idea that they could buy what was offered or do without. Consumers hated it and flocked to piracy at the first chance they got.
Apple finally developed iTunes and allowed consumers the option to purchase each song separately. It was a massive success and tapped into a demand the narrow-minded music executives were unwilling to see.
The natural progression is to an internet based streaming service that provides ad supported music just like radio but offers a better individual consumer choice of genre and song selection than the typical limited FM station. In other words, leverage the benefits of technology into improving an already established method of music distribution rather than try to suppress it.
Some customers obviously like ad supported music services, just like some like ad supported video and get their network feeds for free over the air. Apple is making a conscious decision to ignore that potential user base. The are admitting they are not capable of successfully developing and running an ad supported music service which is fine. There are competitors that do and that gives consumers a choice.
Where it gets to be sticky is when Apple signs an artist to an exclusive period of distribution and deliberately cuts out the competing streaming services. The market should ultimately decide if ad supported services can be successful.
For quite a few years during the transition from records to CDs you had the album in vinyl for $8 - $10 with 45RPM singes priced at $1 while the CD with the exact same songs was $15 - $18. If you were lucky you could get a CD with four or more remixed versions of a particular song for $5, but there was nothing digital comparable to the A side/B side single. The executives insisted on limiting what choices the consumer was presented with the idea that they could buy what was offered or do without. Consumers hated it and flocked to piracy at the first chance they got.
Apple finally developed iTunes and allowed consumers the option to purchase each song separately. It was a massive success and tapped into a demand the narrow-minded music executives were unwilling to see.
The natural progression is to an internet based streaming service that provides ad supported music just like radio but offers a better individual consumer choice of genre and song selection than the typical limited FM station. In other words, leverage the benefits of technology into improving an already established method of music distribution rather than try to suppress it.
Some customers obviously like ad supported music services, just like some like ad supported video and get their network feeds for free over the air. Apple is making a conscious decision to ignore that potential user base. The are admitting they are not capable of successfully developing and running an ad supported music service which is fine. There are competitors that do and that gives consumers a choice.
Where it gets to be sticky is when Apple signs an artist to an exclusive period of distribution and deliberately cuts out the competing streaming services. The market should ultimately decide if ad supported services can be successful.
Jimmy Iovone is a dick.
Still trying to figure out why took this guy abroad.
Still trying to figure out why took this guy abroad.
I'm sure more people are paying for spotify than apple music. The music app sucks more than it did before because they bloated it with its crap service. Apple Radio needs it's own app and it needs to be separated from the iTunes and media management programs.
This is ridiculous. Stuff above 192kbps is transparent anyway, but okay. That being said, I prefer AAC as well.
Can't you just check or uncheck (can't remember which) to tell iTunes not to upload your files? I personally keep a backup of both the itl file and my own music files, so I have not had issues with it doing anything with my collection.
And many white people bought and continue to buy it so what's your point?
Unless Spotify blackmailed labels to signing contracts with them, it is the music labels' fault for entering into contracts that are not beneficial to their artists. They pay what the market will bear, they charge customers what the market will bear.
Bingo.
"Now all we can do is make Apple Music such a special place that people want to come and that will encourage more people [to subscribe]."
What Jimmy thinks Apple Music is:
What Apple Music really is:
What Jimmy thinks Apple Music is:
What Apple Music really is:
apple need to get rid of him ASAP!
it is time to design the music app on iOS from the ground up by differentiate it from iTunes at last, make it the best like it used to be on iOS 6,before iOS 7, before the connection with apple music on 8.4, now it is a mess of bold text on white boring background, missing artwork and confusing user interface
it is time to design the music app on iOS from the ground up by differentiate it from iTunes at last, make it the best like it used to be on iOS 6,before iOS 7, before the connection with apple music on 8.4, now it is a mess of bold text on white boring background, missing artwork and confusing user interface
Apple Music executive and recording industry mogul Jimmy Iovine recently sat down for a wide-ranging interview with Music Business Worldwide, reflecting upon his desire for more people to start paying for music.
The spread of free music has proliferated since the earliest days of the internet, starting with shady peer-to-peer services like Napster and LimeWire and progressing to legal, ad-supported platforms like Spotify and YouTube. Iovine thinks it's wrong, and insists artists should get paid for their work.
However, he admitted that free music is "so technically good" that many people simply aren't willing to pay up. In fact, he said if Apple Music were to offer a free tier like Spotify, it "would have 400 million people on it" and make his job a lot easier. But that's not what he nor Apple believe in.To change that, he said "you've got to put everything into making the experience for people who are paying feel special."
Iovine believes that "people who pay for subscriptions should be advantaged," something Apple Music aims to accomplish with a lineup of original content in the works, including Carpool Karaoke: The Series, Vital Signs, Planet of the Apps, and an upcoming documentary with Harry Styles.Apple Music has also had exclusives with major artists such as Chance the Rapper, Drake, Frank Ocean, and Taylor Swift, and Iovine said those deals will continue occasionally, but he admitted that record labels "don't seem to like it."
Iovine continues to believe that Apple Music will be "on the forefront of popular culture," a sentiment he has echoed in many interviews.
Interview: "Musicians Taught Me Everything. Without Them, I'm Working On The Docks"
Article Link: Jimmy Iovine Says Apple Music Would Have '400 Million' Listeners If It Had a Free Version Like Spotify
I stopped using iTunes more than 10 years ago. I'd ripped most of my CDs in the late 90's and had thousands of songs in the form (Artist)-Title.mp3. Loaded them into iTunes and it renamed and moved around everything. I haven't used iTunes since except as a very basic mp3 play, with a copy of a temp version of my real music library over so it can make whatever mess it wants..
For me at least it's no different than any other product -- if there is no value in it for me then I'm not going to pay. That is true with streaming but not music in general. I do buy maybe 6-12 CDs a years. I can control the quality I listen to, I'm not stuck with a compromise bit rate if I want to listen at home vs my car. And I'm not beholden to a subscription if I want to listen to that CD in 5, 10, 20 years. And if an artist has a tiff with their label and the album is pulled from streaming, well, I still have my ripped CD and the original too, so there is that.
There is no "free" Spotify plan. There's a plan paid for by direct user subscription and a plan paid for by advertisers (and also partly subsidised by the subscription service). Both perfectly valid plans.
And wasn't it Apple also got into trouble when they tried not to pay artists whose music was played by users during their free 30 day trial.
