Music Streaming Services Like Spotify Now More Popular Than Video Sites

[ArtOfWarfare]

Good for you, but i don't see how renting anything for life is a most sensible.

If you were talking about something like a house, where most people only have one, then yeah, renting it for life is dumb.

With music though, there's always new songs that are available. It's great that you bought an album a few weeks ago, but now a new album is available which you haven't bought yet, so you need to go buy that too.

If you're buying $150 worth of music per year, you'd be better off just paying $120/year to stream the music instead.

Also, you can have buyer's remorse when buying albums. You buy a crappy album. What now? You won't be able to sell it for anywhere near what you bought it for. You're not interested in listening to it. You're simply out that money. If you were using a streaming service instead, all you've lost is a few minutes worth of time where you listened to something you didn't enjoy.

I've discovered a lot of musical genres that it turns out I like that I wouldn't have ever risked before, because it would have cost money to buy their albums. Folk Metal is freaking amazing.

 

[2457282]

When it comes to movies or tv shows, streaming makes sense. I just want to "rent it" and watch it once. I am not going to watch it over and over. And with services like Netflix which is still cheaper than music streaming, it really works well. For more recent stuff I will pay the on demand charge through Apple. For Music, I like to listen to music over and over. And over the years. I like to keep my music. Streaming just doesn't make sense for me. I already had a collection of CDs that I ripped into my digital library - well over 10k songs. And over the years accumulated additional songs that I purchased on line (no CD). Now I will occasionally hear new music and if I like it I will just buy it and add to my well over 20k song collection. Given where I am, spending on streaming is actually more expensive for me and gives me very little over what I already have. Obviously, this is not the case for many, but that is my use case. My biggest concern is that with much of the music going behind paywalls, it is becoming harder to listen to new music. But I find ways and I will buy a song or two every month or so and continue my slow increase to my music catalog.

More on point to this article -- This behavior I have described I believe pans out in these numbers. People do not watch videos (movies, clips, shows, whatever) repeatedly as a general rule. But they do with music. So it make sense that if they are counting each time a song is streamed versus each time a video is streamed, the numbers make total sense. As already brought up by others, it would be interesting to see how many minutes are spent streaming music versus video as that may give us a different perspective.

 

[miknos]

Some of us also get a lot of pleasure from listening to old songs.

I can see why some people would rather go for streaming but I'll stick with buying the albums I really want. I do use free Spotify to sample new stuff but I always end up buying the album if I like it.

I see no problem in that. Having options is always better.

 

[OllyW]

I see no problem in that. Having options is always better.

Totally agree. If I was a lot younger and hadn't been building up a big music collection over the last 43 years I would probably be in the streaming camp myself.

 

[Shirasaki]

What if I keep hitting next to find a song I like? Is that eight 3 second streams?

And what if I just let Spotify playing music while I am not listening to it at all? Should this be counted as streaming?
I am thinking about just letting Spotify play continuously while I am sleeping. So that those artists could earn more money while I don't need to actually listen to music.
Oh, same applies to video streaming as well.

 

[Carlanga]

So in USA, streaming service starts taking off. But we can still buy them from iTunes Store or local CD store right? Unless those artists go streaming only, and do not sell CDs at all.
In Japan however, CD is still the major source of selling music. And there is no obvious trend showing they will turn to streaming services in foreseeable future. They do adopt to hires music however.

Japan is all about the physical media. In the us people nowadays don't care to really own movies/music anymore unfortunatly.

 

[Shirasaki]

Kanye was the first album to go to #1 on the strength of streams. So artists will start to do it more and more.

And only in USA right? Or they plan to dominate UK and Europe market by signing exclusive contract with other streaming service providers such as Spotify and Tidal, and don't release physical CD or even iTunes Store download at all?
[doublepost=1467812527][/doublepost]

Japan is all about the physical media. In the us people nowadays don't care to really own movies/music anymore unfortunatly.

So we can simply call it "region difference". Or cultural difference.
I do hope USA music industry could adopt into HiRes music, although I can hardly find a reason they adapt to it since most of their music does not really need lossless to enjoy.

 

[thisisnotmyname]

Shouldn't the measure here be in minutes or bandwidth? (depending on whether you are talking about how people spend their time or congestion) Doesn't seem like a proper comparison of the two.

 

[CarpalMac]

If you were talking about something like a house, where most people only have one, then yeah, renting it for life is dumb.

With music though, there's always new songs that are available. It's great that you bought an album a few weeks ago, but now a new album is available which you haven't bought yet, so you need to go buy that too.

If you're buying $150 worth of music per year, you'd be better off just paying $120/year to stream the music instead.

Also, you can have buyer's remorse when buying albums. You buy a crappy album. What now? You won't be able to sell it for anywhere near what you bought it for. You're not interested in listening to it. You're simply out that money. If you were using a streaming service instead, all you've lost is a few minutes worth of time where you listened to something you didn't enjoy.

I've discovered a lot of musical genres that it turns out I like that I wouldn't have ever risked before, because it would have cost money to buy their albums. Folk Metal is freaking amazing.

Reviewing my "favourites" playlist of over 300 songs (which is constantly updated throughout the year as my mood and fancies change) it would have cost me a fortune to keep buying CD's so that I had all the songs. It's not like all my music appears on just 3 albums, more like 300...

Also, a big part of streaming that some people on here seem to want to ignore is the learning and suggesting ability. Half of my current favourite music is stuff that I likely wouldn't have ever of heard of if Google Music hadn't suggested it. Based on my listening habits it has suggested artists like Electric Six, Puddle of Mudd, Ludivico Einaudi and Tantric that I have had great pleasure in listening to. It has opened my eyes (ears) after previously having reached a point in time when I was beginning to think that there was no more new music in the world that I would like to listen to.

That alone makes it great value to me.

 

[OllyW]

And only in USA right? Or they plan to dominate UK and Europe market by signing exclusive contract with other streaming service providers such as Spotify and Tidal, and don't release physical CD or even iTunes Store download at all?

I haven't heard of any artists going that extreme with new releases. They might have a short period of exclusivity on one of the streaming services but they are still selling CDs and digital downloads. Most artists are also offering a vinyl option with their new albums.

 

[djcerla]

Actually, the drop off is at 7 minutes. After 7 minutes people stop watching. It's like people fall off a clip.

This is according to Dan Russell who is a behavior researcher who works for Google and showed my university internal statistics.

I hope this is sarcasm, as it's closer to 7 secs than to 7 minutes.

7 minutes are an eternity in youtube time.

From YouTube guides:

Tip: Pay close attention to the first 15 seconds of every video — that's when viewers are most likely to drop-off.

 

[michaelant]

"For Apple Music's part, assuming that it maintains its current pace of growth, it is reasonable to assume that it will eventually eclipse Spotify as the top streaming service"

Yeah... there's no reason to assume it'll maintain its current pace of growth, is there? Of course it's going to grow a lot the first year its available - it's new, a lot of people sign up. One year isn't enough to know how fast the pace of growth is going to be, but I'd bet year two will be at a slower pace. I have it and like it a lot, switched from Spotify. And it may outgrow Spotify. But one year isn't enough to extrapolate.

 

[blasto2236]

I you rent you music for x amount of time and then (finally) realize that it's ******** and cancel you are left with nothing. I on the other hand will have something. Music discovery is not rocket science. I can ask Siri if i hear a song on radio that i like or i can go to iTunes store and just browse.

Pointless discussion. Your money, you can wipe ass with it as far as I'm concerned.

If you don't care, then why do you take this hostile attitude in literally every single thread about music streaming?

 

[69Mustang]

I you rent you music for x amount of time and then (finally) realize that it's ******** and cancel you are left with nothing. I on the other hand will have something. Music discovery is not rocket science. I can ask Siri if i hear a song on radio that i like or i can go to iTunes store and just browse.

Pointless discussion. Your money, you can wipe ass with it as far as I'm concerned.

As you guys read the quote above, you're probably thinking, "Wow, that guy John is pretty rude and is seriously over reacting about a benign topic like music streaming." On the surface, you may be right. But if you dig deeper and look between lines, you will clearly see the real cause of his outburst.

It's obviously his Cheerios. Someone pee'd in 'em.

On topic: Not sure where all these binary people come from. Stream vs own doesn't have to be a thing. It's possible to do both. I have a ton of CD, albums, and tapes <-- not scotch or duct, look it up --. Some I listen to frequently and others sit in boxes in my basement never to be played again. Chief among those are the endless CD's my kids purchased growing up. Streaming works for me, but so does ownership. It's not that complicated.

 

[Shirasaki]

I haven't heard of any artists going that extreme with new releases. They might have a short period of exclusivity on one of the streaming services but they are still selling CDs and digital downloads. Most artists are also offering a vinyl option with their new albums.

But if streaming becomes the new norm while purchasing, whether digital or physical, becomes minor, I doubt if those new artists in USA would go streaming only and provide no other options at all.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Are those CDs free? If you want to always have new music, buying it will certainly cost more

Renting is almost always much more expensive than buying in any long-run rental requirement (as this is). Rent "your" music and stop paying and ALL of "your" music is gone. Buy your music and stop buying and whatever music you have to that point is still available to you. If one is always wanting new music, the rental deals work (but if that was me, I'd go Spotify free (or similar) instead of paying for that). But to each his own. Those who enjoy having to pay for music forever and don't mind the steady hits to your wallets, these rental services are for you.

 

[OllyW]

But if streaming becomes the new norm while purchasing, whether digital or physical, becomes minor, I doubt if those new artists in USA would go streaming only and provide no other options at all.

When the iPod was conquering all, CDs continued to be sold despite being overtaken by digital downloads in the US.

There are still a lot of people buying their music despite all the attention streaming is getting in the press. The new Adele album sold more copies in two months than there are Apple Music subscribers and over half of those were sold in the US. I'm fairly sure sales and streaming will be living together for the foreseeable future.

 

[Dydegu]

Radio killed the video star.

 

[RichTeer]

Radio killed the video star.

Nah, Internet killed the video star!

[doublepost=1467816101][/doublepost]I get streaming for informal listening, but for serious listening the only options for me are (in order of preference) vinyl, hi-res digital, and CDs that I've ripped to AIFF. I'm an audiophile so the crappy sound quality from most streaming services just isn't worth my time. Like others here I prefer to own my music in perpetuity, not rent it (I have about 4,000 albums).

 

[rdlink]

....and that's why streaming is a better bargain for most consumers. Ownership is overrated when all you want to do is listen to the music anyway.

What is over 4k songs?

Sorry. Poor grammar. I was saying I own over 4,000 songs.

 

[Shirasaki]

When the iPod was conquering all, CDs continued to be sold despite being overtaken by digital downloads in the US.

There are still a lot of people buying their music despite all the attention streaming is getting in the press. The new Adele album sold more copies in two months than there are Apple Music subscribers and over half of those were sold in the US. I'm fairly sure sales and streaming will be living together for the foreseeable future.

Wow! I didn't know that at all.
I wanted to buy it but physical disk is a bit pricy for me student. iTunes Store one is nowhere much cheaper but quality is considerably worse.

Off topic a bit. Yeah, even though download and CD sale drops, it will then eventually hit a point where sale does not drop to zero but not that great years ago. Then, streaming will coexist with other purchase options.
I sort of doubt if artist can earn enough from just streaming. A lot of users just play one song once and forget about it forever. And such user would also be the main stream utilising streaming service. Then, more artists just create new music so that streaming service user will always have something new to listen to.
I believe "discovery of something new" is the core of streaming service, while buying CD and vinyl record is good for listening to favourite without monthly payment.
[doublepost=1467817143][/doublepost]

"For Apple Music's part, assuming that it maintains its current pace of growth, it is reasonable to assume that it will eventually eclipse Spotify as the top streaming service"

Yeah... there's no reason to assume it'll maintain its current pace of growth, is there? Of course it's going to grow a lot the first year its available - it's new, a lot of people sign up. One year isn't enough to know how fast the pace of growth is going to be, but I'd bet year two will be at a slower pace. I have it and like it a lot, switched from Spotify. And it may outgrow Spotify. But one year isn't enough to extrapolate.

Yeah. Even though predecessors said "good start is half of a success", Apple Music is still too young, comparing with Spotify, and no one can guarantee Apple Music would make no such mistakes Spotify made before.

 

[Rafagon]

Ahhh, so that's why Spotify's been bitching so much. But it's nobody's fault but their own that their business model sucks.

 

[Carlanga]

...
So we can simply call it "region difference". Or cultural difference.
I do hope USA music industry could adopt into HiRes music, although I can hardly find a reason they adapt to it since most of their music does not really need lossless to enjoy.

Yeah, in part regional difference. But is more a gen thing TBH at moment of product launch, US is a more stable market than others in regards to stream quantity of products so you might get more for your money in sub fees. People in US are all about the instant satisfaction as well.

 

[MH01]

Like all reports that make these claims, where does thier data come from?

Are they just comparing platforms that run thier analytics that monitor video and audio? Cause being an audio analytics tool I'm not sure how many major video companies use thier software.

 

[oneMadRssn]

If you're buying $150 worth of music per year, you'd be better off just paying $120/year to stream the music instead.

If finances are ever tough and you decide not to not spend money on music for a year or two, you still have all those years of music you purchased in the past to enjoy if you purchased it; if you pay for streaming you're essentially stuck without music for that time. There is of course Spotify's free tier, but it's not quite the same.