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

[johngordon]

Using the same logic, isn't watching a movie in a cinema a scam since I don't have anything concrete to show for my money after 2 hours?

Maybe I don't mind not having any music of my own to show for years of subscription to a music streaming service. I have listened to a ton of music over the years, some of which I might never have considered trying out if it had required me to pay for it first. What matters more is the enjoyment and the utility I have gained from having on-demand access to any song I want when I want it. I don't have to agonise over whether a song is worth me paying for it or not. I have already paid my subscription, so no harm in listening to it.

Is this worth nothing?

Yes - its worth a huge amount to many, myself included.

People who buy DVDs like to patronise people who go to the cinema about how they are idiots who don't understand the concept of ownership, and would only ever buy DVDs if they could just get their heads around that concept.
[doublepost=1475070278][/doublepost]

Wow. That's a bit shaky on the concept of ownership.

Also you don't seem to realize most people's music taste tends to freeze as they age. I'm in my 30's now, I add maybe 50 songs/year to my music library (mostly discovered by listening to the radio when my wife drives since she loves top 40). I have thousands of songs legally ripped from CDs I bought many years ago.

Let's say been age 15 and 30 I bought 2 CDs/month at $10 each (paying double the cost I would have to subscribe to a service). That means I've spent $3600 on my library and I will have it forever (that's what is meant by ownership). I don't ever have to pay again to listen to these songs. And now I pay under $50 a year to keep my library up to date with every single song I want to add.

You between age 15 and 30 will pay $5/month until you're 20 (assuming student plan) and then $10/month until you're 30. Total is $2100, so you're ahead of me. But at 30 you actually have zero music in your own library. You can keep paying $180/year just to hold onto your library and add whatever few songs catch your interest. And you will never get out of that hole. When you're 50 you'll still be paying for streaming while your smarter peers will be listening ot all their favourite songs for free. And for discovery, don't forget free radio and free tiers aren't going anywhere -- the labels want you to discover new music and they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot that way.

The 30 year old has a total saving of $1500 which is a good amount to go out and buy a significant proportion of the music they might still listen to, so they wouldn't necessarily have no music if they spent the same total amount of money as you.

When I'm 50 I'll still be paying $10 a month to listen to all the music I want, while you'll still be forking out $10 for each and every album.

You don't seem to realise that not everyone sees it the same way as you.

 

[Shirasaki]

I disagree - I think its just one way of listening to music. The music comes from different sources. If I have some stuff in my library that I've added over the years that isn't in Apple Music, I don't want to have to switch apps to listen to different things. Having it all together in a single, apparently seamless, library is much more convenient IMO.

But current state is it is a total mess, even previously Apple Music would ruin local music library completely. Damage reports are there. Being separated voids such mess, although switching between app to listen to music is not a very good solution.
Btw, thanks to the missing of star rating, I NEED to switch between 2 apps to rate the song I like or don't like, in favour of smart playlist.

 

[johngordon]

I guess it depends how you use it.

I mostly just use it to listen to music.

1. Open App
2. Tap on Artists or Playlists
3. Scroll to Artist / Album or Playlist I want to listen to
4. Hit play

 

[Ries]

Wow. That's a bit shaky on the concept of ownership.

Also you don't seem to realize most people's music taste tends to freeze as they age. I'm in my 30's now, I add maybe 50 songs/year to my music library (mostly discovered by listening to the radio when my wife drives since she loves top 40). I have thousands of songs legally ripped from CDs I bought many years ago.

Let's say been age 15 and 30 I bought 2 CDs/month at $10 each (paying double the cost I would have to subscribe to a service). That means I've spent $3600 on my library and I will have it forever (that's what is meant by ownership). I don't ever have to pay again to listen to these songs. And now I pay under $50 a year to keep my library up to date with every single song I want to add.

You between age 15 and 30 will pay $5/month until you're 20 (assuming student plan) and then $10/month until you're 30. Total is $2100, so you're ahead of me. But at 30 you actually have zero music in your own library. You can keep paying $180/year just to hold onto your library and add whatever few songs catch your interest. And you will never get out of that hole. When you're 50 you'll still be paying for streaming while your smarter peers will be listening ot all their favourite songs for free. And for discovery, don't forget free radio and free tiers aren't going anywhere -- the labels want you to discover new music and they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot that way.

And you also have no idea what you're missing out on the enjoyment of opening a brand new CD, putting it in your player and browsing the pristine new album art as you give the disc its first listen. That experience is definitely worth something if you care at all about music.

And as for your last point about not being able to give it away or resell it...doctrine of first sale is still valid law. I absolutely can legally give away or resell music from my collection as long as I don't keep extra copies.

I'm in my 30's now and you're only adding 50 songs/year to your playlist because you don't get exposed to anything else than the top 40. Im adding 15-20 songs each week from artists I don't even knew existed from the personalised "Spotify Weekly Discovery" list. I did own CD's, do you know what happened to them? I threw them out, stuff like Aqua and Captain Jack doesn't fall in my taste anymore. 80% of any CD i've owned was "Meh, garbage" after 3 years. Spending time ripping CD's, organising MP3's and finding cover art is just wasted time (try factoring that into the price), when I can get that and access to millions of tracks for a low price of $9.99. I deleted my MP3 collection the second i got Spotify, it is just not worth the hassle.

 

[Shirasaki]

To all guys thinking they can listen to "every" music they want using streaming, here is another drawback: since you don't even own a copy, once that song is gone for whatever reason, you will not be able to listen to that music again. Take App Store removed apps as example, SysSecInfo. This is a very interesting app being pulled by Apple eventually before it is on App Store for just a few days. Imagine if you don't have a local copy of this app, but just receive a streaming version of it, what would happen?

If "ownership" mainly means there is a valid physical copy at hand, then I support it. Being able to listen to my favourite without the need to pay $10 over and over is great.

Stream is perfect for discovery, while purchase is perfect for collection. They are complementary, not replaceable.

 

[usarioclave]

Just like there are many types of listeners, there are multiple types of owners. I suspect that those of us who actually own our music are becoming a minority, and will eventually go away as time goes on...just like all the people who didn't grow up with a mouse/keyboard.

For Apple Music, the question is "how far ahead of the curve should they get?" Older people have money to buy stuff. Younger people do not.

 

[DevNull0]

When I'm 50 I'll still be paying $10 a month to listen to all the music I want, while you'll still be forking out $10 for each and every album.

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.

 

[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.

Um, how old do you think I am?

You just can't help making assumptions can you?

 

[DevNull0]

I'm in my 30's now and you're only adding 50 songs/year to your playlist because you don't get exposed to anything else than the top 40. Im adding 15-20 songs each week from artists I don't even knew existed from the personalised "Spotify Weekly Discovery" list. I did own CD's, do you know what happened to them? I threw them out, stuff like Aqua and Captain Jack doesn't fall in my taste anymore. 80% of any CD i've owned was "Meh, garbage" after 3 years. Spending time ripping CD's, organising MP3's and finding cover art is just wasted time (try factoring that into the price), when I can get that and access to millions of tracks for a low price of $9.99. I deleted my MP3 collection the second i got Spotify, is is just not worth the hassle.

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.

 

[johngordon]

To all guys thinking they can listen to "every" music they want using streaming, here is another drawback: since you don't even own a copy, once that song is gone for whatever reason, you will not be able to listen to that music again. Take App Store removed apps as example, SysSecInfo. This is a very interesting app being pulled by Apple eventually before it is on App Store for just a few days. Imagine if you don't have a local copy of this app, but just receive a streaming version of it, what would happen?

If "ownership" mainly means there is a valid physical copy at hand, then I support it. Being able to listen to my favourite without the need to pay $10 over and over is great.

Stream is perfect for discovery, while purchase is perfect for collection. They are complementary, not replaceable.

Bad analogy - you're just clutching at extremely unlikely worst case scenarios.

You can imagine all you like about music just randomly disappearing from Apple Music, but until it starts happening, its pretty unlikely.

And even if a small amount of music does get removed for whatever reason you care to dream up, I could easily just buy a few CDs, and still have spent far less.

For example, if I buy 2 CDs a month for a year at $10 - that's $240.

A year of Apple Music - $120.

Lets suppose - and I'm being generous here - six whole albums just vanish from AM that I happen to listen to.

I could go out and actually buy them for $60 and still have spent only $180 to your $240.

 

[marty1980]

I disagree - I think its just one way of listening to music. The music comes from different sources. If I have some stuff in my library that I've added over the years that isn't in Apple Music, I don't want to have to switch apps to listen to different things. Having it all together in a single, apparently seamless, library is much more convenient IMO.

Re-read what I said. Although they would be separate, Apple Music would still be able to include your purchased music. You wouldn't need to switch from Apple Music to music if you're using both. The problem with the Music app on iOS is similar to iTunes on Mac & PC; trying to do too much in a single package and not optimizing for anything because it has to consider every type of use.

The redesign in iOS 10 helps a little, but only helps to affirm Apple's desire for all music to be consumed through streaming. I don't know if Apple would actually drop album purchases and require streaming for new music, but they are in a position to try to force it if they want.

As much as I try to ignore Apple Music, iOS keeps insisting it's part of my experience. Including turning the crap back on during OS updates.

 

[modeyabsolom]

Iovine also hinted that there's new stuff coming to Apple Music that he doesn't think anyone "will see coming."

Hopefully that might include a high-res audio streaming option like Tidal and a few other streaming services offer.

 

[DevNull0]

Iovine also hinted that there's new stuff coming to Apple Music that he doesn't think anyone "will see coming."

Hopefully that might include a high-res audio streaming option like Tidal and a few other streaming services offer.

To listen to on the bandwidth-limited bluetooth headphones Apple is pushing?

My guess is Apple is going to start their own hip-hop label.

On the other hand, hinting about great new stuff coming sounds like another reference to Timmy's clogged pipeline.

 

[johngordon]

My guess is Apple is going to start their own hip-hop label.

Don't tell me - because Beats 1 plays nothing_but hip-hop?

 

[thekeyring]

Just yesterday KGI said iPhone 7 is not expected to sell as well as 6s, this would mark another YOY decrease.

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.

 

[Shirasaki]

Bad analogy - you're just clutching at extremely unlikely worst case scenarios.

Because its unlike property you choose to ignore. I agree with your choice as yours are more economical.
However, once it happens, it would be a blow to all of us. Think about airplane crashing from sky. Highly unlikely right? But once it happens, everyone is battling with fate.
Nevertheless, let's stop here.

Including turning the crap back on during OS updates.

No, it just turns back on after a few days if you turn it of, regardless of whether you update iOS or not.

 

[DevNull0]

Don't tell me - because Beats 1 plays nothing_but hip-hop?

Well if you already know....

That and the whole beats acquisition in the first place. Timmy's huge crush on Dre. The fact that this thread itself is about Iovine.

There's certainly nothing to indicate a higher bitrate streaming service and plenty to contradict that.

 

[johngordon]

Because its unlike property you choose to ignore. I agree with your choice as yours are more economical.
However, once it happens, it would be a blow to all of us. Think about airplane crashing from sky. Highly unlikely right? But once it happens, everyone is battling with fate.
Nevertheless, let's stop here.

Planes do sometimes crash, this is true. But most people still fly because the chances of being in a plane crash are tiny.

I don't think 'if I subscribe to AM for years, a tiny number of songs might be removed, but if that happens I could just buy the CDs and still be spending a lot less money' is a very good reason not to subscribe to AM.

 

[jgdeschamps]

Wow. That's a bit shaky on the concept of ownership.

Also you don't seem to realize most people's music taste tends to freeze as they age. I'm in my 30's now, I add maybe 50 songs/year to my music library (mostly discovered by listening to the radio when my wife drives since she loves top 40). I have thousands of songs legally ripped from CDs I bought many years ago.

Let's say been age 15 and 30 I bought 2 CDs/month at $10 each (paying double the cost I would have to subscribe to a service). That means I've spent $3600 on my library and I will have it forever (that's what is meant by ownership). I don't ever have to pay again to listen to these songs. And now I pay under $50 a year to keep my library up to date with every single song I want to add.

You between age 15 and 30 will pay $5/month until you're 20 (assuming student plan) and then $10/month until you're 30. Total is $2100, so you're ahead of me. But at 30 you actually have zero music in your own library. You can keep paying $180/year just to hold onto your library and add whatever few songs catch your interest. And you will never get out of that hole. When you're 50 you'll still be paying for streaming while your smarter peers will be listening ot all their favourite songs for free. And for discovery, don't forget free radio and free tiers aren't going anywhere -- the labels want you to discover new music and they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot that way.

And you also have no idea what you're missing out on the enjoyment of opening a brand new CD, putting it in your player and browsing the pristine new album art as you give the disc its first listen. That experience is definitely worth something if you care at all about music.

And as for your last point about not being able to give it away or resell it...doctrine of first sale is still valid law. I absolutely can legally give away or resell music from my collection as long as I don't keep extra copies.

Shaky? That's why I posted RIAA's disclosure on what you can and cannot do with mediums and content. I didn't invent copyright laws. It's what you have permission to do with a recording medium and its contents. People not realizing that is what amazes me. Not that I didn't venture into piracy before, but as you get older you don't wanna drag those types of things, or karma, as Jobs once mentioned about the iTunes Store.

I already did the math, and for me, is cheaper to maintain an AM subscription than a vinyl or CD collection (and I do have them stored in a closet.) Again, streaming has the ability to improve quality and experience according to technology.

As for opening CDs... I'm 39, so I've had my fair share of opening vinyls, CDs, cassettes, computers, consoles, tape players, music sheet packages, microphones, synths, keyboards, and even received from a truck my first acoustic vertical piano and removed its wrapping. I LOVE AND ENJOY MUSIC A LOT. CD album artwork ranks way down on experience when compared to other mediums and products. Not even good literature for the crapper (and that includes booklets for classical pianists and musical directors and orchestras, NIN-like albums packages and artwork, etc.) Don't miss artworks and booklets one bit. It's way better to look for a song and have displayed its music video (if it exists) right down the search results.

 

[Shirasaki]

Planes do sometimes crash, this is true. But most people still fly because the chances of being in a plane crash are tiny.

I don't think 'if I subscribe to AM for years, a tiny number of songs might be removed, but if that happens I could just buy the CDs and still be spending a lot less money' is a very good reason not to subscribe to AM.

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.

 

[johngordon]

Well if you already know....

That and the whole beats acquisition in the first place. Timmy's huge crush on Dre. The fact that this thread itself is about Iovine.

There's certainly nothing to indicate a higher bitrate streaming service and plenty to contradict that.

I don't know - that's why I asked.
[doublepost=1475087702][/doublepost]

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.

Sure - what I take issue with in these discussions is the repeated suggestion that AM subscribers lack that understanding.

 

[Shirasaki]

I don't know - that's why I asked.
[doublepost=1475087702][/doublepost]

Sure - what I take issue with in these discussions is the repeated suggestion that AM subscribers lack that understanding.

You mean actually many AM sub-ers understand the ownership and streaming stuff and it's pros and cons?

 

[johngordon]

You mean actually many AM sub-ers understand the ownership and streaming stuff and it's pros and cons?

Yes.

Its not complicated after all.

Pro - costs less.
Con - you don't own it.

Although seeing as you are free to listen to it without owning it, then for the most part 'not owning it' doesn't seem to matter much.

 

[grahamperrin]

… Iovine says there's enough free music in the world to make people question whether they should subscribe to a service. …

There's plenty to enjoy with Clementine.

 

[MS_Hedrick]

The scenario of disappearing content Shirasaki proposed isn't implausible. It could become a tool used to raise artificially low subscription revenues.

Cheap streaming subscription prices can't be sustained indefinitely. It's a loss leader.

Content gets removed from Netflix all the time. Music and video streaming share the same underling issue: most incoming revenue goes to pay for content, and that cost isn't declining. The models for how that payment is distributed differ, but major revenue goes out the door just the same. The scenarios touting this river of income spreading around keeping this well oiled business model humming along just isn't so.

Not one streaming service turns a profit. Never have. They each have some magic number of subscribers needed to break even that no one's yet attained. Right now there's a lot of competition for subscribers. A never ending quest for subscribers by a wide field of competitors; an environment that can't last. Consumer choice will have to be thinned out.

Big players with varied income streams such as Apple have deep pockets allowing them to bleed out much longer than say a Spotify, Pandora or Tidal. A collapse of a major player would shift their subscriber base to the survivors. Strong survivors negotiate exclusive deals with content providers, further differentiating them and weakening consumer choice.

With the wide gap in cost between purchasing and streaming music that many here have pointed out, there's a fair amount of room for subscription fees to comfortably increase. When competition declines expect that to happen.

At what point do consumers bail? There's a lot of convenience in streaming, so what if it costs more.