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
In your eyes, they are walking a tightrope.
In my eyes, they have set a solid foundation to build upon (Swift, APFS, Metal, Custom SoC's) - that will leave the competition further in the dust.
Try not to let one bad Apple Music revision and late Macs misguide you
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
It's not really 'free' if advertisers pay for it. Spotify collects millions from advertisers each year. Get your head out of your a$$ Apple. The adds in Spotify more than justify the free tier and artists can still be paid based on a % of the revenue from adds.
I think Apple doesn't fully understand where the money comes from...
Because Distributors take 90% of the box office in the first week, 80% in the second week, 70% in the 3rd week, etc... theatres get the rest.
Since most people see a movie in the first two weeks, theatres don't actually make much money from the ticket sales. They make most of their money from popcorn and advertising prior to the movie. Even then, because they are renting out so much space, their profit margins across the entire business are only around 4%.
This isn't a problem with theatres, it's a problem with Studios/Distributors... not unlike the relationship between artists and Music labels.
Being a Spotify member since before the US beta, I'd switch in an instant if Apple had a free version like Spotify.
Fair enough we have a difference of option, but you're the one who first mis-stated what I said to make a straw man attack, then you accused me of misdirection, and now you are attempting misdirection.
All of those technologies you mentioned may well be a good foundation to build on, but they are irrelevant to this thread, and what we were just talking about, specifically, the tight rope I say they are walking in terms of maximizing margins at the expense of customer experience. Just amazing you pull that right after wrongly accusing me of misdirection.
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
Spotify is way better than Apple Music. Works great on iOS.
Yeah, I'm aware that he is a successful business man. Still, there's just something that turns me off about him.
Don't you think you're being a bit hyperbolic? Apple is the most successful/valuable company on Earth. That's hardly mismanaged. You might not agree with all of management's decisions. I certainly don't. But come on, they're hardly walking a tightrope. More like raking in the dough! And that's what a business is supposed to do. Being focused on profit is why one goes into business. Otherwise you're a charity.
I completely disagree that they are focused on profit over quality and customer experience. Who offers a better customer experience? Seriously. From buying the product, to usability, to repairs, who does a better job? They aren't perfect, but they take customer experience very seriously and their products are very high quality for the most part. I can't think of another tech company that comes close.
The weak link in my mind is their services business. This is the one area where I think they are extremely weak and I cannot understand why, after so many years, they still can't get it right.
What would you like to see them do differently?
hmm I wonder if it's to make some time so people can get their snacks or if they arrive a little late...
If he really wants subscribers to feel like they have an advantage, how about offering full resolution streaming at CD quality?
You do know that Spotify has lost enormous amounts of money? Unfortunately for Spotify they chose the wrong business model and are desperately trying to hold on and make it to an IPO or sell to someone else to bail out the venture capitalists who have funded it before they go belly up. Their problem is that music streaming has largely become a "commoditized" product, i.e., everyone is pretty much offering the same product so consumers will choose largely based on price. In that environment, Spotify doesn't have other revenue streams like Google, Amazon and Apple, so Spotify (and Pandora, Tidal, etc.) are forced to price their offerings so low to compete against companies like Amazon that can afford to bundle their product and make it essentially free. Spotify is not long for this world.
the concept of 'free' is mind-blowing here.. if no advertiser supports the service, then there will be no service.. how exactly would Apple make money from it ? They wanna profit from it like most people do in a 'business' Furthermore, how many free services are out there without any ads at all ? are they profitable ?
I would like the free tier in Apple music,, it would attract more people, and bring it in line with other free services.. "You don't get access to the whole library." because if u did then there'd be no point paying, unless u include some sort of annoyance to go along with it,, eg you don't hear entire song, limited album/songs selection, take a break for commercials... There are lots of things to ** off users.
I would like the free tier in Apple music,, it would attract more people, and bring it in line with other free services.. "You don't get access to the whole library." because if u did then there'd be no point paying, unless u include some sort of annoyance to go along with it,, eg you don't hear entire song, limited album/songs selection, take a break for commercials... There are lots of things to ** off users.
Apple have a problem, they are in the Services industry where it is generally a race to the bottom. Premium Services?! The service industry works on volume - whether that is number of listens, free subs, paying subs etc. I use Amazon Prime Music, but I only have it because I have alot of Amazon orders and next day delivery saves me time and money. That's the battle Apple has is that Amazon offer Music, Video and Delivery for LESS than Apple Music.
As a sideline to that I'm still well against what Apple did by spoiling the main music app, the Apple Music service should have been a stand alone product. I have 8,000 songs on my iPhone, I use the music app but it isn't as good as the old one for my media. I suppose that is the issue, Apple don't believe the music is ''mine'' (Even though I spent a lot of money via iTunes and had an iPod from the 2nd Gen onwards).
As a sideline to that I'm still well against what Apple did by spoiling the main music app, the Apple Music service should have been a stand alone product. I have 8,000 songs on my iPhone, I use the music app but it isn't as good as the old one for my media. I suppose that is the issue, Apple don't believe the music is ''mine'' (Even though I spent a lot of money via iTunes and had an iPod from the 2nd Gen onwards).
“iTunes on the Windows Store” might be a sign of a rewrite for Windows, and thus an opportunity to redo a lot of things they might not want to disclose at a Microsoft event.
I like Jimmy and I thought the full interview was a very good read. I am happy to see that Apple has brought on some heavyweights in the music industry to guide Apple Music as it grows and develops. For me, I have been a subscriber since day one. I love the easy access to the majority of music I need, I like how it integrates with my existing library, and the pricing is fair in my eyes for what you get in return. Recommendations is something that needs to improve and I am sure they are gathering a ton of data to support this feature in the future. They also need to branch out from primarily rap music, as I think that's really all they push. Overall though I think they have a good team and the right mindset for music in general moving forward. I would much rather pay and support the artists than listen to ad supported free music.
[doublepost=1495107492][/doublepost]
I have heard this a lot, but I guess I got lucky with my iTunes integration. I have 15,000 songs and the only issues I had were some incorrect artwork generated on a few albums. So far it has worked pretty flawlessly for me. And this is on probably about 4 iOS devices and 3 macs.
[doublepost=1495107492][/doublepost]
I have heard this a lot, but I guess I got lucky with my iTunes integration. I have 15,000 songs and the only issues I had were some incorrect artwork generated on a few albums. So far it has worked pretty flawlessly for me. And this is on probably about 4 iOS devices and 3 macs.
That is true and I agree wholeheartedly - the concept of "the starving artist" comes from the idea that poverty produces the best art. In that regard, it becomes a "chicken and the egg" issue: is the artist poor because he/she can't make money from their art/music/theater/dance/writing? Or do they somehow fail to create high quality until they become poor? At any rate, in the case of music, unless independently well-to-do, the musician had to produce something of a certain level of good or better quality to even get signed on by a recording company. Now, streaming and digital sound technologies have made it fairly easy to self-produce, leaving out the professional recording industry. Though production is far cheaper, the produced music is often at mediocre or less quality that most people aren't willing to pay much to hear. You have a lot more "music" out there than the market will or can absorb. Even if you'd be willing to pay for the .1% of the music that is of higher quality, it's hard to sift through everything to find that music. Here's where the problem comes - that .1% hasn't found a a paying model out there that can reliably get their produced product to the potentially paying audience. News print and hard copy books are having similar issues with loss of ad revenue for newspapers and for loss of customers for books in pulp form. As with musicians, good writers, columnists, and reporters are having trouble reaching a largely digital audience willing to pay for their product. Until a viable profit model can be found, good musicians and writers will eventually give up and do something else just to put food on the table. Additionally, newspapers and book publishers are having trouble staying afloat.
well no - if the movie started on time people would be on time and they would get their snacks beforehand. As usual it's a race to the bottom, people arrive 10 minutes late to avoid the ads so they play the ads for 15 minutes so people arrive 15 minutes late to avoid the ads so they play them for 20 minutes.
Just seems like a bit of an over reaction to me. No matter what you do or where you go, you are served ads. Driving down the highway, watching tv, surfing the internet, not sure why someone would draw the line at movie theaters. But hey, to each their own I guess.
And most theaters, the Concession Stand is wholly independent from the theater itself, generating money for the concessions only and not going to the price of the rental of the movie.