Report Claims Apple Considering Apple Music Price Drop

[Plutonius]

$4.99 a month and they may have me back.

I agree 100%. At $4.99 a month, I would subscribe. Anything more than that, I will not.

 

[tchadrainwater]

How about they lower the Storage prices first, or music and 1TB for $9.99 and unlimited photos!

 

[koulmj]

$4.99 a month and they may have me back.

Word!

 

[_manoloruiz_]

A price drop is always nice but here, in Japan, Apple Music lacks most of the principal Japanese artists that people want to listen to. Until they do something to address that, it doesn't matter how much they lower the price, it's just not worth paying for unless you're almost exclusively into western music.

 

[tentales]

Apple Music is great for being able to hear the entirety of classical performances before deciding which ones to buy. There's no way you can judge a classical work by hearing 90-sec previews of tracks.

I'm 100% sure I've saved money by having the sub (which I also use to download stuff Apple Music recommends to me from other genres based on what it knows about my library) and not spending money on CDs where it turns out I don't care for some aspect of the performances. Now when I spring for the CD or the iTunes purchased download, I know exactly what I'm buying.

Not a big fan of streaming since I have erratic DSL sometimes and no cell service at my residence. I'd rather own my music, in fact, but for non-classical works I'm usually willing to risk eventual loss of the stuff I do just download from Apple Music. When that's not the case I move over to the store and buy it.

The price drop is nice but I'd keep paying what I'm paying now. I share sentiments of others who have expressed concern for adequate monetary recognition of the artists and writers.

I'm with you on classical music, but why would you need to listen to the entirety ?
Sampling 90seconds for free on iTunes or any other service usually suffices me to select Classical and Jazz recordings.
I typically end up buying the CD which is still superior for those 2 genres rather than compressed MP3.

Furthermore, I'd have 3 months free to focus on the selecting recordings before paying up for the subscription.

So, despite you not being a fan of streaming, having erratic DSL and no cell service at your residence, you still don't mind blowing $10/month for essentially a browsing service ?

Artist recognition is worse on streaming services than any other medium.
Best way to support Artists is to buy the album directly from their websites.

 

[koulmj]

This price drop is meaningless to me since they don't actually have the music that I listen to...

Maybe this will help drive the price down to competitors like Spotify

 

[DEMinSoCAL]

If Apple Music is doing as well as Apple says it is, why would they drop the price? (hint...it ain't doing so well...)

 

[B4U]

And what music is it that you listen to? I know they don't have everything, but they have damn near everything. Close enough, in my world anyway, to make it worth the fee. (I'd love it if the older David Sylvian ambient stuff were available).

Unfortunately, I am fully aware of my unique preference...
For example, Japanese PS3 games original sound tracks. They won't be available due to copyright issues. I can search for them with a Japanese iTunes account, but definitely not an US account.
So far, my only solution is to import the CD.

 

[Mobster1983]

The school discount is misleading. The school has to be a party to some third-party organization. I am at a nationally-recognized accredited university, but because the school does not appear in hatever database, I cannot verify my eligibility. That discount would be nice and definitely lead to me keeping Apple Music.

 

[aaronhead14]

You should start thinking about building a Hackintosh, it's almost as if Apple wants you to do that.

I wish. But the best current hardware components (GTX 1080 GPU and x99 CPUs, for example) aren't compatible with macOS.

 

[itsmilo]

Too bad i cant use it cuz ive got two apple ids and it wipes everything every time i need to switch

 

[legacyb4]

Yeah I'm in the old-school camp of actually having music stored locally.

I don't need the battery and data drain of streaming stuff for no reason, not to mention all the places that have poor/no cellular service.

Seriously, people still use that as a reason? I would have thought by now everyone understands that Apple Music isn't "streaming only" and that you can actually download and locally cache music for playback...

Play on. Even offline.
Go ahead and stream. But if you’re in a place where a signal isn’t readily available, you can easily see and play all your downloaded music. If you know you won’t have a connection, simply download your songs and playlists in advance.​

 

[dampfnudel]

Making room for a "premium" tier?

 

[Feenician]

Seriously, people still use that as a reason? I would have thought by now everyone understands that Apple Music isn't "streaming only" and that you can actually download and locally cache music for playback...

Play on. Even offline.
Go ahead and stream. But if you’re in a place where a signal isn’t readily available, you can easily see and play all your downloaded music. If you know you won’t have a connection, simply download your songs and playlists in advance.​

Right? You can download and retain the same amount of music as if you'd ripped your CD's or bought from the store. Meanwhile, here in the real world with near ubiquitous wifi and cellular connection you can also add to that, any time you feel like it. OMG CRAPPLE!!!

 

[3568358]

MacRumors User: $8.99 for Apple Music? That's almost $10! That's outrageous!

Apple: *Lowers Apple music by $1*

MacRumors User: $7.99 for Apple Music?! Now I'd buy that! Apple's won me back!

 

[Tech198]

Go Apple !!

We like lower prices. Even if it is only two dollars saving.

Personally i doubt Apple would care much about using software like MacSome unlike Spotify, because Apple counts downloads as "revenue" anyway. so technically downloading music to listen offline or whatever u do afterwards with it would still be counted to pay anyway.. they still win.

 

[Analog Kid]

I don't think I'd care much if Apple ends music downloads, but if Amazon stops shipping CDs then I'm lost.

 

[Asclepio]

0.99 a month and i'm in. maybe.

 

[msephton]

"In May, Digital Music News reported that Apple planned on ending iTunes Music downloads within two years, eliciting a specific "not true" response from Apple. A month later, Digital Music News reported that new sources had come forward claiming that Apple would end music downloads in the future, and that the company would debut a new version of iTunes at WWDC that would make it easy for the company to do so."

I'm still wondering what this paragraph had to do with the rest of the news item? Feels superfluous.

 

[Altis]

Seriously, people still use that as a reason? I would have thought by now everyone understands that Apple Music isn't "streaming only" and that you can actually download and locally cache music for playback...

Play on. Even offline.
Go ahead and stream. But if you’re in a place where a signal isn’t readily available, you can easily see and play all your downloaded music. If you know you won’t have a connection, simply download your songs and playlists in advance.​

Why would I want to deal with that hassle?

How about I just sync my music onto my phone once and never have to deal with it after?

Never have to worry about whether or not I downloaded one a song I own or suffer the data/battery drain for those that aren't downloaded.

 

[calvin2006]

I have an Apple Music family sub and would be happy to pay less. On the flip side, I have Amazon Prime and have never once used Amazon's free music library. Amazon's UI is... even "terrible" does not really do it justice. I also don't watch any of Amazon's free Prime streaming video for the same reason. My point here is that I don't think Apple and Amazon are going after the same market.

I recently moved all my music to Amazon Prime and find it vastly better than Apple Music. The UI on their iOS player is worlds better than Apple's.

 

[0098386]

Ha! Just as I consider cancelling my subscription. I only signed up 2 months ago but I feel like I've had my fill now. A lower price might keep me on board.

 

[sw1tcher]

I honestly don't understand the appeal of streaming music.

I agree with this part.

It drives up your data usage when you're not on a WiFi network.

I have no idea what you're talking about here.

 

[rp2011]

One room has a Roku, another a Chromecast, one and Alexa in the kitchen. The Apple TV in a box with other junk somewhere in the garage.
I can have the Spotify app play in almost any room in the house.

The price reduction is enticing, but until it streams to actual devices I use its pretty much useless to me.

Appke needs to release a cheap easy to install and use streaming dongle or open it up to other streamers for me to subscribe.

 

[Sevendaymelee]

The industry can't sustain the old prices and they think this is going to work? Ok then...
[doublepost=1477981909][/doublepost]

"In May, Digital Music News reported that Apple planned on ending iTunes Music downloads within two years, eliciting a specific "not true" response from Apple. A month later, Digital Music News reported that new sources had come forward claiming that Apple would end music downloads in the future, and that the company would debut a new version of iTunes at WWDC that would make it easy for the company to do so."

That'll be a sad day, and when that comes to pass, we'll then have to find another way to "own" and enjoy our music, without having to depend on some internet provider and remote server.

Yeah, it's called physical music lol.