Jimmy Iovine Talks Apple Music Exclusives Criticism, Says Service Was 'Too Ambitious'

[Abazigal]

Yep. Thats not a good reason to not sub to AM just as plane crash is not a good reason to not take flight. All ends up with personal understanding of streaming and data ownership.

I used to rent books instead of purchasing them for that very same reason. It was cheaper than owning the book, there weren't any books so good that I would find myself reading it over and over again anyways, and it saved me the hassle of finding space to keep it at home.

I am personally not very interested in owning music. Prior to subscribing to Apple Music, I hadn't purchased or owned a single track of music, physical or digital (beyond the free albums that Apple gave me as part of some Christmas promotion). And no, I didn't pirate music either. I simply didn't bother with them.

If not for music streaming services, I doubt I would find myself bothering with music altogether.

I understand where I stand with regards to music streaming. I understand and accept that if I ever stop subscribing, I stand to lose everything and will having nothing to show for my money.

I. Don't. Care.

 

[satcomer]

I see streaming services are the new radio without all the commercials! If I pay a monthly, yearly streaming service fee that service better not serve adds! I won't pay for a service if it has adds all the time!

If you been Alive as long as I have cable hardly add mother than 2 minute breaks only twice during a half hour show! Today some TV networks shows have more commercials then actual shows!

 

[cjbryce]

Funny how easy it is to brainwash people who are too young to have perspective or know history. So you agree with Johnny that a free music tier is a bad thing where leeches just rip off artists?

Have you heard of this thing called RADIO? Well, with Radio, not only is it free for the consumer, the labels actually pay the radio station to play the songs they wanted to promote.

So now with the free tier on spotify, the user doesn't get to select the track they want, they can choose to play an entire album or playlist at random and Spotify also inserts other songs they want to promote. Much like with radio, music is being used to promote music. The labels come out ahead because they don't actually pay the payola, and there is no difference for the artist because they payola/promo money comes out of the label's piece of the pie.

Now how did you get so brainwashed to believe that every single time a song is played that artist deserves to be paid for the play? It has never worked that way, and that way would kill music fast.

Flattered to be called young, most would say I'm far from it

I think my response was addressing the oft-stated view that music should be free as the record companies/execs make a lot of money. Having been peripherally involved in the music business for about 10 years, 10-15 years ago, I can see why that view persists - some labels/executives do make a lot of money, some labels/executives certainly exploited artists and some labels/executives rigged (illegally in the UK) station playlists.

What often goes ignored is that "free" music is never actually free, someone always pays in the end. If it's piracy then the labels and the artists lose out. If it's free-tier streaming then the listener has to pay the price (songs they don't want, advertising &etc) even free-to-air stations with no advertising (e.g. BBC radio in the UK, where labels/artists are certainly paid-for-play) must be paid for somehow (e.g. the BBC TV licence fee pays for BBC radio output)

What troubles me the most is the attitude that seems to exist that because it's digital and not a piece of plastic then it should be free. There's no such thing as a free lunch, in the end, someone has to pay and if "free" music is what the public demand (and somehow gets) then the music itself will eventually suffer as new, talented and innovative artists will simply not be invested in even by the indie labels because there will be no possibility of a return on that investment.

Be very careful for what you wish for.

 

[JimmyJimmyYam]

It's not removed from iTunes. All your smart playlists still work.

But I exclusively rate while I mobile, so that isn't a viable alternative alas.

 

[jgdeschamps]

I take your points, but I was responding to someone who basically said if you can't resell copies for profit, you don't own it. I was describing the difference between owning a CD/Legit MP3 download vs subscribing to a streaming service.

You cannot re-sale it or re-distribute it, because what's inside the CD, file, vinyl, tape, etc. is not yours. Why? Because music is an abstract form of expression that takes advantage of air vibrations to exist for a finite lapse of time. CDs, vinyls, tapes, digital files, etc. are just like glass jars that when you take the lid off let you reproduce the vibrations of air that make you listen to music. "But I own the jar to listen to that same air vibration for as long as I want!" Keep reading... There's one person that pours the air with the vibrations for music to thousands of jars, and he puts a label with small prints on each jar that says "What's inside the jar is not yours, I'm just using the jar to lend you the air vibrations that reproduce the music each time you take the lid off. You can keep the jar with you forever if it doesn't break or gets stolen, but you cannot use other jars to pour the air vibrations inside them because the only one that can do that is me, the air vibration owner, and I paid big bucks explicitly to have that right. Also, you cannot pour the air vibrations for music to your friends' jars. I can complain to an authority so you'll receive punishments if you break these rules." Each jar costs 10 bucks for you to basically keep it at home (not own its content.) You "buy" them when you want them, but contain only what the label says it contains. You need racks to store them at home and take up space.

Streaming is a kinda new, really small, unbreakable jar that contains millions of air vibrations that you can choose to listen to anytime, anywhere, and it's content label changes to help you decide what you might want to listen to and shows you it contains air vibrations you didn't know they even existed. You can even choose one, or two or three jars that do this same thing (based on your enjoyment of their shape.) They don't take up space on a rack. You pay the cost of a "regular" glass jar to a guy each month for this unbreakable jar. The label also says that air vibrations are not yours, but you can listen to them as long as you keep paying the monthly fee, like you do with heating, electricity and cable bills.

In my opinion, streaming has way more pros than cons, and physical medium retention per se is a moot point (as in "irrelevant".)

 

[DevNull0]

You cannot re-sale it or re-distribute it, because what's inside the CD, file, vinyl, tape, etc. is not yours. Why? Because music is an abstract form of expression that takes advantage of air vibrations to exist for a finite lapse of time. CDs, vinyls, tapes, digital files, etc. are just like glass jars that when you take the lid off let you reproduce the vibrations of air that make you listen to music.

Stop getting your understanding of law from the RIAA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

I guess you think all the used music stores and ebay auctions are illegal?

And I really didn't understand your jar analogy.

 

[JustinRP37]

This had to happen eventually. Nothing can grow forever! If competitors were releasing superior products it would be a problem, but that isn't the case. No one has done to Apple what Apple has done to Blackberry.

People here often moan about Apple's bloated product line, or software that isn't simple/efficient, then say they might switch to Samsung. Really? Or that the macOS isn't innovative so they're going to switch to Windows. Last time I checked, Windows 10 had 3 UIs floating around.

Apple might not be perfect, but it's pretty great. Just we notice it's imperfections more now that Steve Jobs isn't charming us at every keynote.

I agree. The only issue I have with them is having the Mac line literally rot, which will hopefully be rectified soon. There still is NOT a single competitor that can touch the Apple Ecosystem, and no that is not fanboy speak. There is no brand that syncs so well. But I am alarmed by the Mac line right now. Hopefully we see that October refresh.

 

[jgdeschamps]

Stop getting your understanding of law from the RIAA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine

I guess you think all the used music stores and ebay auctions are illegal?

And I really didn't understand your jar analogy.

Oh my God, you are debating about wether you can or not get rid of your records? That's what you got from my posts? I'm debating about the true licensing involved when you get a recording on a physical media versus getting a recording over streaming, not if you wanna give one of your vinyls away for 200 bucks. Take a look at it and what you really end up owning is a 6" round plastic. How hard is that to comprehend? The actual music is licensed, meaning that wether you like it or not, the content is lended to you, not bestowed. Wanna make a copy to give it to your friend without written permission from the actual owner of the music? If the label finds out, they can screw you big time if they wanted to. You don't have a license to copy and distribute, but you get a backup copy for safekeeping or for listening on your iPod. Just like in streaming, where you download to listen offline. No advantage of a CD over streaming regarding licensing. What counts is the handling of the content to get it to you, not the container. Many people here say you just get a license when streaming while you own with CDs or digital downloads. It's an incorrect assumption and hard to grasp by many, including you, judging by your inability to comprehend my example. That's why we have streaming detractors.

EDIT: By the way, by re-selling o re-distributing I didn't mean that you can't sell your original medium. Read all of my posts. I always talked about making a copy and give it away for free or for money. But, if you cannot distribute music making copies on any medium, then you don't own it.

 

[ErikGrim]

But I exclusively rate while I mobile, so that isn't a viable alternative alas.

There are alternative iOS music players that will let you rate songs using the star ratings still, like Ecoute.

 

[MS_Hedrick]

There are alternative iOS music players that will let you rate songs using the star ratings still, like Ecoute.

Glad there's some support, at least until Apple drops the other shoe.

Absolutely no justifiable reason to remove a feature that occupies zero footprint on the default user interface, and doesn't negatively impact the user experience.

 

[Shirasaki]

Glad there's some support, at least until Apple drops the other shoe.

Absolutely no justifiable reason to remove a feature that occupies zero footprint on the default user interface, and doesn't negatively impact the user experience.

Apple is just arrogant to change stuff for the sake of changing. No actual meaning for this, although someone brags "there is no need to have two different system for rating" and claim "love and dislike is enough for everyone and thus star ratings is redundant".

 

[johngordon]

You think so, huh?

When I was buying tons of music, gas was under $1/gallon and a Saturday night movie ticket was $5. Sorry to burst another one of your bubbles, but prices go up. That $10 will probably be $25/month when you're 50, and all my CDs will still be mine at no added cost.

I forgot to say earlier - if prices go up, and Apple Music shoots up to $25 in a few years, can we also assume that the cost of a CD will rise from $10 to $25?

 

[Shirasaki]

I forgot to say earlier - if prices go up, and Apple Music shoots up to $25 in a few years, can we also assume that the cost of a CD will rise from $10 to $25?

However the price he has paid is there, fixed. No one can change. Problem only exists if he buys new CD. The beauty of one time charge, actually.
Subscription? It will just go higher and you need to pay whatever Apple says or not to subscribe. Oh, The Economists subscription fee has risen a bit just recently.

 

[johngordon]

However the price he has paid is there, fixed. No one can change. Problem only exists if he buys new CD. The beauty of one time charge, actually.
Subscription? It will just go higher and you need to pay whatever Apple says or not to subscribe. Oh, The Economists subscription fee has risen a bit just recently.

You're missing the point. He was saying that prices go up as time goes on.

So I was asking, if the monthly cost of AM is likely to increase to $25 is the cost of a CD also likely to increase to $25.

Just because CDs cost $10 now doesn't mean they will still cost $10 a few years from now. You know, if prices go up and all.

 

[Shirasaki]

You're missing the point. He was saying that prices go up as time goes on.

So I was asking, if the monthly cost of AM is likely to increase to $25 is the cost of a CD also likely to increase to $25.

Just because CDs cost $10 now doesn't mean they will still cost $10 a few years from now. You know, if prices go up and all.

Sorry but you also miss the point.

We justify the price raise for CD released a few years later. However, what he says is when he was still young, CD was cheap enough. He bought them. Now, CD price goes higher, even for the same CD, but the price he paid for that CD before is fixed, and he does not need to pay current price to listen to that CD anymore.

Long story short. He buys a CD for 10 bucks. And you pay AM sub for 10 bucks for the same CD. After a few years, you need to pay 25 to listen to the same CD while he pays zero to listen to the same.

 

[Uofmtiger]

Sorry but you also miss the point.

We justify the price raise for CD released a few years later. However, what he says is when he was still young, CD was cheap enough. He bought them. Now, CD price goes higher, even for the same CD, but the price he paid for that CD before is fixed, and he does not need to pay current price to listen to that CD anymore.

Long story short. He buys a CD for 10 bucks. And you pay AM sub for 10 bucks for the same CD. After a few years, you need to pay 25 to listen to the same CD while he pays zero to listen to the same.

The part you are missing is that for a few years the AM user has millions of albums at their fingertips while you have one new CD a month for the same money. Even if you add 3 years of buying one CD a month, you will be listening to less than 36 albums over that same period. Even if they raised the prices in three years, you aren't really that far ahead of the game. Also, I have my doubts that prices will go up very much, if at all. They have been in the $10 range since 2001.

As a side note, CD (discs) are the worst investment you can make with your money. I invested a lot of money building up my CD collection. It is now worth a tenth of what I paid, if that.

 

[MS_Hedrick]

I forgot to say earlier - if prices go up, and Apple Music shoots up to $25 in a few years, can we also assume that the cost of a CD will rise from $10 to $25?

Yeah, the future's gonna be more expensive, and we have history to back that up. I made twice what my parents made yearly (which pisses them off no end), but they bought the house mom still lives in for $10,000 bucks!

Children have out earned their parents for a while. Expect that to continue into... well, maybe I better stop there. Pay attention; things of great impact often advance imperceptibly.

I posed this question differently a while back: Streaming is cheap. You want it, there's lots of choices who to get it from. But, now it's got the attention of some big players, none of who love music more than some of you here.

Amazon's doing it now for $5/month. Apple, Google, Amazon. Streaming is not their main income stream, so they can afford to give it to you for less than it costs. Is it because they're just really nice guys at heart trying to spread the love? More likely this will erode competition. No one; no one is making any money streaming music to you. The field is not new, but in order for provider income to rise to cover costs some consumer choice must die.

What is streaming music worth to you? How much can your monthly cost rise, before you say screw this. The market will adjust up to meet this level. It's just a matter of time.

Some of us may be dead before this shift happens, but someone's right behind us to take our place.

 

[Shirasaki]

The part you are missing is that for a few years the AM user has millions of albums at their fingertips while you have one new CD a month for the same money. Even if you add 3 years of buying one CD a month, you will be listening to less than 36 albums over that same period. Even if they raised the prices in three years, you aren't really that far ahead of the game. Also, I have my doubts that prices will go up very much, if at all. They have been in the $10 range since 2001.

As a side note, CD (discs) are the worst investment you can make with your money. I invested a lot of money building up my CD collection. It is now worth a tenth of what I paid, if that.

Alright.
Arguing which one is better seems a bit, um, unnecessary now. It is pretty clear that with 10 bucks a month or 120 a year we can listen to whatever we may like. It is a huge bonus. However, if certain song you like is gone on stream platform, your money goes nowhere. We don't own the song but we own a copy. And we can do whatever we like for that copy except distributing it.
Back to the main point: streaming is renting music, while purchasing CD is owning a copy of music. Streaming is great for discovery while owning CD is great for preserving our best taste. With streaming, our actual cost on building our best taste will decrease because we don't spend money on songs we don't like, which means we save money on purchasing CD.

 

[MS_Hedrick]

As a side note, CD (discs) are the worst investment you can make with your money. I invested a lot of money building up my CD collection. It is now worth a tenth of what I paid, if that.

Enjoy your CDs my friend. As often as you like, on whatever device you like, on the moon if you can get there, for the rest of your life. And it won't cost you a dime more to do it.

 

[thekeyring]

I agree. The only issue I have with them is having the Mac line literally rot, which will hopefully be rectified soon. There still is NOT a single competitor that can touch the Apple Ecosystem, and no that is not fanboy speak. There is no brand that syncs so well. But I am alarmed by the Mac line right now. Hopefully we see that October refresh.

I agree. I think things could have gone differently for Microsoft if they had tried to build a good ecosystem based on Windows on PC, and apps across iOS and Android (and a solid cloud keeping everything in sync). Not one Windows on all devices, when no one wants a Windows Phone.

& I agree about Macs as well. I would love them to have an October event where they update everything... Turn the entire Buyers Guide green. Instead I'm worried they'll update the MacBook Pros and iMacs (for example) and leave the rest.

I don't necessarily mean change for the sake of change. It sounds like the MBPs will get a redesign, but products like the Mac mini could be brought up-to-date spec wise and nothing more.

 

[Uofmtiger]

Alright.
Arguing which one is better seems a bit, um, unnecessary now. It is pretty clear that with 10 bucks a month or 120 a year we can listen to whatever we may like. It is a huge bonus. However, if certain song you like is gone on stream platform, your money goes nowhere. We don't own the song but we own a copy. And we can do whatever we like for that copy except distributing it.
Back to the main point: streaming is renting music, while purchasing CD is owning a copy of music. Streaming is great for discovery while owning CD is great for preserving our best taste. With streaming, our actual cost on building our best taste will decrease because we don't spend money on songs we don't like, which means we save money on purchasing CD.

You won't find the songs you like as often as you would if you have the world at your fingertips. It is like comparing being able to drive 99 percent of cars in the world anytime you feel like it for a fee vs buying one car to drive every day. If you love that Ford Tempo and don't even bother test driving other vehicles, you may never realize there is a much better car out there for you because you never have a chance to drive it.

BTW If that album comes out from XYZ that is not on the streaming platform, we can buy it. It still costs a lot less in the long run because those albums are few and far between and the unavailable group will only get smaller as more people transition from CDs (ask recent hold outs like ACDC and The Beatles).

Enjoy your CDs my friend. As often as you like, on whatever device you like, on the moon if you can get there, for the rest of your life. And it won't cost you a dime more to do it.

Our lives are not infinite. That means that you will enjoy that small group of CDs over and over vs having the world of music at your fingertips. Once again, I prefer having access to almost everything, but then again, I like to discover new (to me) music. It is how you can dig into catalogs by artists without spending a fortune.

 

[DevNull0]

I forgot to say earlier - if prices go up, and Apple Music shoots up to $25 in a few years, can we also assume that the cost of a CD will rise from $10 to $25?

Which is 100% my point. I bought the CD at $10. When the price goes up to $25, my $10 CD is still mine to keep forever. They are not going to come to me and ask for the extra $15.

 

[johngordon]

Sorry but you also miss the point.

We justify the price raise for CD released a few years later. However, what he says is when he was still young, CD was cheap enough. He bought them. Now, CD price goes higher, even for the same CD, but the price he paid for that CD before is fixed, and he does not need to pay current price to listen to that CD anymore.

Long story short. He buys a CD for 10 bucks. And you pay AM sub for 10 bucks for the same CD. After a few years, you need to pay 25 to listen to the same CD while he pays zero to listen to the same.

No - the point is that after a few years I (apparently) have to ay $25 a month for AM, and he, presumably, has to pay $25 for a CD.

The point is that if prices always go up, the the price of CDs will go up just as the cost of AM will go up.
[doublepost=1475259127][/doublepost]

Which is 100% my point. I bought the CD at $10. When the price goes up to $25, my $10 CD is still mine to keep forever. They are not going to come to me and ask for the extra $15.

And if in five years AM costs $25, then Apple aren't going to come and ask me for the extra $15 for this month's subscription.

The point is, that if in the future AM costs $25, then by the same token you'll be forking out $25 for a CD.

 

[Uofmtiger]

Which is 100% my point. I bought the CD at $10. When the price goes up to $25, my $10 CD is still mine to keep forever. They are not going to come to me and ask for the extra $15.

That is true, but that CD may only be worth 5 cents when that happens sometime in the future (Cue up the song "In the year 2000"). I can just take a few cents out of my pocket and buy that 20 year old CD that you have been holding onto all that time.

Edit: One thing that I failed to mention is that I don't see the price of streaming going up to $25. The problem for the labels and streaming companies is that digital is easy to copy and distribute. That means that when the price goes beyond a breaking point, alternatives will be available. In other words, the main reason streaming and iTunes were able to start is that the labels had to find an easy alternative to piracy. I don't think they want to start over again.

 

[Shirasaki]

You won't find the songs you like as often as you would if you have the world at your fingertips.

So, all for the disposable song and lower quality produce, because we can just shuffle millions of songs and rest assured there will always be something new waiting for us.

If you love that Ford Tempo and don't even bother test driving other vehicles, you may never realize there is a much better car out there for you because you never have a chance to drive it.

Yep. Likely there are better cars out there and I don't know. However, so what? If your aforementioned Ford Tempo is good enough, why spend time on searching for better cars?

Our lives are not infinite. That means that you will enjoy that small group of CDs over and over vs having the world of music at your fingertips.

That's called love, of that album, that produce. Alright. We are in different dimension of philosophy of life. You embrace change and discovery while I prefer the balance between discovery and retain memory.

And if in five years AM costs $25, then Apple aren't going to come and ask me for the extra $15 for this month's subscription.

Really? Apple just charge you more and send an email to tell you price has risen. If you want to keep sub then pay more. It is too simple for Apple to do so.