Sony Music CEO Confirms 'Apple Music' Unveiling at WWDC

[Gameboy70]

If you spend $120 a year on streaming, you're throwing money away. If you spent that on downloads, you could buy 24 albums in your own time to listen to forever. If you paid for streaming only, after twenty years, you would have spent $2,400, probably more, as it is likely to increase in price. You then have a good idea of what music you like.

If you spend $120 a year on streaming, you're listening to a virtually unlimited library of music for a full year. I consider that a much better value than listening to the same 12 albums a year, followed cumulatively by a dozen more each passing year.

You decide you don't want to spend $120 a year to listen to more bad new music.

Your reference to "more bad new music" is, as I alluded to earlier, a symptom of age. You're past your golden age of music, and you'd rather mine your existing collection of "real" music. Nothing wrong with that—being 45, I did the same a few years back, until I realized I was slowly turning into my parents. Finding a few good music blogs and following Rdio listeners whose tastes I respected got me over the whole "all new music is crap" canard.

There's a flip side to the alleged value of investing in permanent ownership. The risk of purchasing a bad album makes download purchasers inherently more conservative music fans. If I want to hear Tame Impala or St. Vincent for the first time, they're a click away, amortized in my $10 subscription. If I wanted to hear them on a download purchase basis, I'd risk blowing $20-30, or I'd have to make sure I previewed snippets of their albums' tracks before committing to the purchases.

What do you do? You have no music. You could have built a library of 480 albums worth of tracks, but you have nothing but twenty years of regrets.

If only you hadn't been suckered into that subscription model...

Or you could pony up another $10 and have another month's access to 8.4 million albums' worth of tracks, new and old, without regretting those CDs of the Thompson Twins and OMD you bought that haven't been cracked open since the Bush 41 administration.

 

[ToroidalZeus]

We've reached the point at which there's nothing left for Apple to do it's primary lines of business except a minor tweak, join the crowd and promote the heck out of it. Mostly visible when cars do it. Square Mercedes and square BMW's become curvy Japanese autos. Why? Because the buyers apparently in fact do buy more whenever there is a "change" no matter what the change is.

The problem is that "managed change" becomes the mantra rather than "usability". "How can we change our cereal box to be different, not better."

there is a lot apple could do but they lack the vision to do so.

1st: iPad Pro running full OS X.
2nd: Revamped iOS that isn't just a reskin but an actual improvement (reorganized cluttered settings area, add real widgets, etc)
3rd: reinvent the car with self-driving vehicles.
etc.

 

[wikiverse]

And next thing you know samsung will
Launch their own streaming services called... Samsung Music

Joke's on you. Samsung have had a streaming music service since the Galaxy S2 - called... Samsung Music Hub.

It has always cost $9.99/m or $99.99/yr. It was before iTunes Radio... and before Spotify.

 

[Mackinjosh]

Joke's on you. Samsung have had a streaming music service since the Galaxy S2 - called... Samsung Music Hub.

It has always cost $9.99/m or $99.99/yr. It was before iTunes Radio... and before Spotify.

Yep. Apple once again super late to the party and all they're bring are stale crackers.

 

[queshy]

Natively part of iOS and better integrated on the Mac, also more music than Spotify. Those are a couple of easy to guess points.

Looking forward to seeing what they come up with
Not sure how much more integrated it can be ...the current version is great.
And more music ? I thought Spotify is pretty well stocked with music and there's not much I couldn't find.

 

[HenryDJP]

But who is saying that $10 is the magical price point? I find $10 way to much for leasing music so I would never choose any of them at that price point. 3 months ago Google had a special deal for $3 for 3 months and while I liked it I'm not dropping $10 on it. $5 yes. $10 no.
So if Apple does a special for a few months sure i will try it but I'm putting a note in my calendar to cancel 2 days before renewal. Maybe Apple will undercut everyone by a few bucks. Let's see. And I would like to see the cross platform compatibility as I use both Android and Apple. I'm not locked into one ecosystem.

I agree with you. I don't want to pay $10/mo either. Heck, Netflix is only $8.99 and I feel I would get much more out of it than a music subscription. I don't think anyone is saying $10/mo is the sweetspot for a monthly music subscription premium however Spotify has enjoyed getting away with it. I wouldn't necessarily say Apple will undercut them but they may offer more for either the same price or offer a bit less for less money giving the consumer choice. I hope it happens that way.

 

[Gameboy70]

If streaming music services start having exclusives though, doesn't that limit your options?? All this drama about what artists are going to be on a service seem a bit limiting to me. I just buy what I want, period. I don't really care what service or label or brand they are with. When I can, I'd much rather pay the artists direct. Many bands I see have CDs for sale at their shows - yes CDs!! Still better quality and a built-in back up that I can rip and listen to with no monthly fees.

My understanding, which might be proven wrong tomorrow, is that the exclusives would be temporary—say, 90 days. Personally, none of the artists that have ever been mentioned as candidates for the exclusive tier are any that I would ever miss. Any artist who has enough leverage for Apple to bestow the Exclusive imprimatur on them is probably too commercial for my tastes.

 

[dypeterc]

If the streaming service is $100, your options are 100 songs that you listen to (and accrue w each year) or a virtual unlimited number of songs for a year. Your choice. It's not like you HAVE to stream or buy.

 

[jordancrombie92]

iTunes Radio is forming the free tier of Apple Music.

ah cool. as I'm in the UK, I've still not managed to try iTunes Radio

 

[lincolntran]

Under Steve Jobs, a reveal in advance of the keynote would have meant a broken partnership with Sony. The employee who revealed on Instagram would have been fired instantly as well.

"The times they are a changin'."

So.... you rather that people get fired over leaking freaking small things like this (that everyone will know the next day anyway)? People actually have to support their families and need jobs, you know. I'm just glad that I don't work for you and all those who clicked like to this comment. I like it that Apple is becoming more human under Cook.

I'm an Apple fan, but geeeesh! Talk about freaking obsessive fanboys.

 

[Scrump]

One thing I don't really get is why this new consumer product would be a big thing at the WWDC. I would have thought that a seperate launch event would make more sense. Do you think there'll be much detail anyway until it's official launch.

Will we get iOS 8.4 this week?

 

[rols]

I am not defending either model, just saying... Stating no one cares about streaming, just because YOU don't, it's stupid.

But I didn't say that, I didn't even imply it. There's lots of streamers out there and there will be lots more. I said why I don't like subscription models in general (not just for music, I really dislike them for software) and I believe there are plenty of other people out there who don't like signing up for another thing which drips money out of your bank account every month.

 

[doelcm82]

there is a lot apple could do but they lack the vision to do so.

1st: iPad Pro running full OS X.
2nd: Revamped iOS that isn't just a reskin but an actual improvement (reorganized cluttered settings area, add real widgets, etc)
3rd: reinvent the car with self-driving vehicles.
etc.

What you really are saying is that Apple lacks your priorities. Your particular, personal priorities. It isn't that they lack vision. They just don't see things exactly your way.

 

[pat500000]

i'm tired of hearing talking about statistics...why? because nobody really cares...and also it takes up time..so they could talk less..and show less things...

 

[Wreckus]

Does anything think that Apple's streaming service & revamped iTunes or whatever it will be called is coming sooner than we all think?

 

[springsup]

And therein lies the rub.

Most people simply won't pay for radio, even ad-free and curated. There's too much free competition.

I predict that this streaming service will appeal to children, as they lap up music; they haven't heard much. For the rest of us, it will struggle.

Well here's the counter argument: Spotify had been thriving. Either there are a huge number of people in the world who buy loads of new music every month, or this discovery thing is really quite an enjoyable service.

It's not exactly like radio, but that's the closest parallel. These are playlists, and you can peek at what they've got, copy and edit them, skip tracks, etc. It makes a big difference and makes the service much more enjoyable.

Ultimately that's just one way of accessing all of the music you have available to you. You can also search for specific things, browse the charts or whatever you like to do. You just need to abolish the idea of your "music library" -- which takes time -- and then you'll be ready to make the most of these kinds of services.

 

[sniffies]

iTunes Radio is forming the free tier of Apple Music.

iTunes Radio will be called Apple Radio from tomorrow on. iTunes no more. i no more.

 

[Keirasplace]

Account sharing is feasible, look at the family thing, it'll probably tie in with that.

Lossless is mostly for a minority at the moment. iTunes Radio is 256kbps at the moment I believe, so Apple music will be the same, it'll all come from the iTunes Store. Hopefully they'll change t up to 320kbps

Yea, as for offline, I agree.

I think a 256 kbs aac file is of better quality than a 320 kbs

You aren't locked into one or the other. It's $10 a month, not a ton of money if music is a primary medium of entertainment for you. I love having Spotify - if I hear a song or someone recommends something, I can just look it up and play it instantly. If I like it I can explore an entire artists catalog right away. If I really like it, I can still pay $10 for an album, at the end of the day. $10/month is just the cost of a single album, and it gives me unlimited access to pretty much any song I could ever want on every device in my home (computers, iPad, iPhone, Sonos, etc.) I especially like it in my car since I don't have to pay for Sirius or use any radio service, since there are millions of songs and playlists at my fingertips. Years ago, I was a music collector and definitely skeptical of the model, but it won me over pretty quickly once I gave it a try. I don't miss the idea of "owning" all my music, and while I do still buy music on occasion, it's much more rare than it used to be. And while there is criticism of the revenue model for artists, it basically eliminates the desire to pirate anything, which is also a win for the industry as a whole.

Yet pirating music has not diminished ONE BIT. I can easily get 99.9% of all songs released in the last 50 years and download them "free" if I so choose, that's a hell of a lot of songs btw... just google any song you like + mp3 and you'll get 100 sites with that song on it, most in countries with dubious intellectual property protection. For more obscure songs, you need to go a bit more underground but they're there. So, streaming is just another way to kill revenue, because the pitance the artist gets doesn't replace a purchase and certainly doesn't stop pirating.

 

[dypeterc]

So.... you rather that people get fired over leaking freaking small things like this (that everyone will know the next day anyway)? People actually have to support their families and need jobs, you know. I'm just glad that I don't work for you and all those who clicked like to this comment. I like it that Apple is becoming more human under Cook.

I'm an Apple fan, but geeeesh! Talk about freaking obsessive fanboys.

If I was helming Apple there would be repercussions for these leaks. That is if they're really leaks...

 

[dypeterc]

I think a 256 kbs aac file is of better quality than a 320 kbs


Yet pirating music has not diminished ONE BIT. I can easily get 99.9% of all songs released in the last 50 years and download them "free" if I so choose, that's a hell of a lot of songs btw... just google any song you life + mp3 and you'll get 100 sites with that song on it, most in countries with dubious intellectual property protection. For more obscure songs, you need to go a bit more underground but they're there. So, streaming is just another way to kill revenue, because the pitance the artist gets doesn't replace a purchase and certainly doesn't stop pirating.

I can't remember when was the last time I bought let alone pirated a track.

 

[Keirasplace]

Well here's the counter argument: Spotify had been thriving. Either there are a huge number of people in the world who buy loads of new music every month, or this discovery thing is really quite an enjoyable service.

It's not exactly like radio, but that's the closest parallel. These are playlists, and you can peek at what they've got, copy and edit them, skip tracks, etc. It makes a big difference and makes the service much more enjoyable.

Ultimately that's just one way of accessing all of the music you have available to you. You can also search for specific things, browse the charts or whatever you like to do. You just need to abolish the idea of your "music library" -- which takes time -- and then you'll be ready to make the most of these kinds of services.

Until artists get pissed off at being hosed and react... And streaming costs go up. That's coming and I know quite a few people who will be happy about that... A great majority of money paid by streaming services go to a few top artists like Taylor swift (and even them get less money than if you buy the tracks instead of listening to them on a loop) and not indie bands, which could barely buy a few boxes of mac n cheese with the money they make from streaming.

 

[Keirasplace]

I can't remember when was the last time I bought let alone pirated a track.

Your own experience is not typical. That's the thing. Pirating is still massive, yet people bought tracks. Now, revenue from that too is going down in the dumpster.

 

[Soccertess]

2015 Keynote:

- 30 minutes of "Look at our sales, WOW! Everyone give each other a hug, did we mention we love our customers?"
- iOS 9: Stability improvements!
- OS X: Stability improvements!
- Apple Music: "OMG look it's U-2!!!"
- Fade to black...

There. I just saved you two hours of time and months of Mandarin or sign language classes. You can thank me later.

you forgot price drop on Apple TV - now $59!

 

[Wreckus]

you forgot price drop on Apple TV - now $59!

on the subject of Apple TV, I wouldn't be surprised if Apple shows a new UI for it tomorrow.

EDIT: revised to make more sense.

 

[bpcookson]

Nothing could be more wrong. When you have access to an unlimited music library, you really rely more on curated playlists and discovery. In a lot of ways it's just ad-free subscription radio, but with the curators aren't just e.g Spotify, but you, your friends, other people with similar tastes, DJs and professionals (for example, the BBC do Spotify playlists). It's really about discovering and enjoying new music in a way you can't compare with ownership.

I didn't spend anything like $10/mo on music, but I've really been enjoying Spotify. It's worth the cost to me, because it adds more enjoyment than $10 worth of music I already know I like.

That's an excellent point. I believe I've overlooked it because I already have numerous discovery methods outside of Spotify. That's not to say I don't make use of Spotify's discovery tools (my god do I ever!), but simply that I've always had a robust music discovery system such that the additional methods are just icing on the cake.

This should be considered a huge advantage for Spotify, except... you don't technically need to pay for this kind of access. Free users get all the same discovery action as far as I can tell. Still, the major difference is probly that paid users probly take better advantage of such features (or at least have incentive to do so to maximize their dollar).