I think you are correct, Adele holds the top selling album in recent decade. And Frozen (Disney) had the 2014 record.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Taylor Swift to Stream Top-Selling Album '1989' on Apple Music
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I think you are correct, Adele holds the top selling album in recent decade. And Frozen (Disney) had the 2014 record.
Ah, wait. You can only stream in HD what you have BOUGHT in HD. The top rental quality is still lossless CD.
I wasn't particularly thinking about maps (but yes, that's a pretty good example for the point I was trying to make), but rather about iTunes Match. Not really an Apple Music predecessor, but it was Apple's first attempt at the whole music in the cloud concept. And believe me, it has been for a long time a pain in the ass, and still is (albeit slightly better).
I don't have a good reason for it to fail, Apple simply has a history of overcommiting and underdelivering when it comes to services, so I'm just extrapolating. I'm sure Apple Music will be excellent at some areas, but I'm also sure it won't be the streaming music service to rule them all; I'm pretty much sold (as long as the service works well) just because of Siri integration, but I believe Spotify and others will be more than worthy competitors for years to come. I'm going to give you that beats is behind this though, not Apple, which might warrant a solid product...
I'm not anti-Apple at all (I even have an Apple watch!), just trying to be realistic, but I really hope AM is as good as it seems to be.
Guys guys, you have it all wrong. Last year Apple introduced the Swift programming language. Since then they've been a bit frustrated that the top search results for Swift point to Taylor Swift.
So one Apple Music service and a fracas (thanks Jeremy Clarkson) with Taylor Swift later, SEO problem solved.
Why it was called Swift by the way? too much Taylor Swift coincidence...
Yup, can see it now. Dre threw a party at his pad, Tay-Tay met a few of the Apple crew. My guess it was discussed over some very dry martini's and then it was nothing but stage directions.
It really did seem to happen all to easy on both sides. Apple never actually said they weren't paying anything during the free trial so they have some deniability.
Sure that is next. Sir Paul pulled off the whole "Paul is Dead" thing for decades. Can imagine a digital revival of some Beatles rumor with a social media post here and there, some legacy media follow up, a mentioning at the new CBS Late Show that is desperate for anything sensational post-Letterman and then maybe even something built into an Apple OS release with a MacRumor's to keep the buzz going.
The best selling point of Apple Music is the iOS integration. In my car it is quite cumbersome to use Spotify...
I guess you missed this.
Apple Confirms 71.5% Revenue Sharing for Apple Music, No Royalties During Trial Period
I think I was sticking to the facts, 8 months v 15 years. I don't care what era it is, 15 years is 15 years. So don't forget the facts.
The new Steve Jobs. She tells Apple what to do.
That's not what I see. I see 3 months for $0.99:
https://www.spotify.com/us/premium/
That's the same deal that reeled me in at New Years - I thought it was a limited time offer; I didn't know it was still going on now, 7 months later.
I didn't say anything with this was wrong. I'm saying Apple's business model has been, and still is, selling hardware. Everything else is merely a feature designed to sell hardware. Last quarter, 88% of Apple's revenue came from iPhone, iPad, and Mac sales. Does Microsoft or Google make that large a portion of their respective revenues from hardware sales?
Google's revenue is primarily from selling ad space - thus their apps are cross-platform to maximize the potential audience. Microsoft's revenue is primarily from selling software licenses - this it doesn't make as much of a difference to them whether you use Office for Windows or Office for Mac, so long as you're using MS Office. Though, I guess I will buy that by offering Office for Mac they might be trying to get those people back into the Windows ecosystem.
Still, for Apple, the hardware is their business. This is why Apple Music can be so good. Apple doesn't need it to be profitable per se. If it is profitable, great win-win! If the Apple Music revenue just covers costs, good! If Apple Music revenue doesn't cover costs and is a loss, not so bad so long as Apple Music makes Apple's hardware more appealing to buy than the same money spent on pure marketing. Without this pressure to have to make a profit, but rather treating it as a feature to drive consumer demand for iPhones, Apple Music might actually be very good for consumers.
I scrolled through the discussion, and didn't find the answer to the below:
On iTunes Radio, I can listen to Taylor Swift and others for free, if I also listen to the ads.
On Apple Music, I can pay something to avoid the ads, and Apple will pay out 71.5%.
On Spotify, I could listen to Taylor Swift (until she pulled her music) and others for free, if I also listen to the ads.
On Spotify, I can pay something to avoid the ads, and Spotify will pay out 70%.
So, a difference of 1.5% makes Apple great, but Spotify horrible, for the musician?
(I know that each of Apple and Spotify have their special offers, but I guess they both pay the musicians during that period. Apple was planning to NOT pay, which is why they offered the 1.5% extra, I believe.)
Did I miss something?
On iTunes Radio, I can listen to Taylor Swift and others for free, if I also listen to the ads.
On Apple Music, I can pay something to avoid the ads, and Apple will pay out 71.5%.
On Spotify, I could listen to Taylor Swift (until she pulled her music) and others for free, if I also listen to the ads.
On Spotify, I can pay something to avoid the ads, and Spotify will pay out 70%.
So, a difference of 1.5% makes Apple great, but Spotify horrible, for the musician?
(I know that each of Apple and Spotify have their special offers, but I guess they both pay the musicians during that period. Apple was planning to NOT pay, which is why they offered the 1.5% extra, I believe.)
Did I miss something?
It's gigantic. The streaming industry is young and it's all about mindshare at this point. Apple is now the leader, and they have not even introduced their service yet.
Due to all this fuss I really want to stream it and see what I've missed. It must be really special. But, yeah I've never consciously listened to any of her music.
she really had no choose but to offer it after apple decided to compensate the artist from out their pocket, but I still think if she had her choose she wouldn't.
I think she could have been fine not joining the streaming crowd. She could simply say that she was speaking up for those who are not as successful as her and do not have a voice that is as widely heard as hers. She could add that while it is not for her, it is a great opportunity for smaller artists and when she was starting off in music, a deal like that would not be appealing to her at all. She needed to get paid in her early days just like those starting now in the industry need to get paid as well.
Yes. We are all fans of Apple and tech because we badly want to be exposed to the exact same media as much as possible through as many outlets as possible. Thank you.
What a PR stunt this has been. Both parties couldn't have orchestrated it better.