U.S. Music Fans Continue Shift to Streaming Services as Apple Readies Beats Revamp

[ayale99]

"Level matched by ear" - Fail 1

At no point does the writer state HOW he switched from A to B - which matters. Fail 2

I doubt the alcohol helped.

If you can't measure it, it isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

/QUOTE]

Some people are all about numbers and tests (you) and some are about the experience (vinyl collectors). Today's vinyl sounds great. Far better than the dominate MP3 standard. It's awesome to sit down and dedicate time to listening to both sides while checking out the artwork that came with the album. It's like reading a good book.

I imagine that less than 1% of the world worries if they're flex capacitor reaches 40db on the who cares scale. You're splitting the tiniest of hairs.
Like the author said, you've got a bad case of CMS.

 

[mrphil49]

Rather than get into all I could here, I'll just say that virtually all new music you can buy today on LP has been converted to digital at some point in the chain of production before the final disc is cut. Given that there are so many places where LP's are demonstrably inferior, (dynamic range, crosstalk, just to name a couple that anyone can spot) how can it be that an LP cut from a digital source can sound better than said digital source?

(This coming from a guy with thousands in his own vinyl rig. It's a great medium, but let's not get carried away.)

Yes, vinyl LP's from the 1950's were the best "cut" discs & new vinyl is likely stamped from digital recordings & therefore inferior to "old" vinyl. That doesn't erase modern greed that limits us to poor representations of the actual music. We get no choice because none of the services offer quality digital new music just because they have dumbed down the buyers into accepting the cheaper format. I strongly expect that the recording studios master copies are far superior. The same is done for movies as all have been using 4K cameras for at least 4 years yet there is no media. Worse, few movies have digital DTS Dolby 7 sound on discs that list the original movie distributed in it!
That you don't like the inconvenience of cleaning an LP is your choice.
If the laser reading LP machines were mass produced, you would have no need to clean the vinyl more than once as nothing touches the disc & the machines are enclosed.
Let's see how well the full quality "PONO" digital portable machines are received as they get released very soon. Orders being taken now & a download site is also because being started up.
As someone w/a music degree, concert experience & decades of retail expertise, I still listen to my CD's on a Tube CD player & have my 1975 turntable w/a "Moving Coil" needle. Both produce very different experiences.

 

[castlema]

Almost all of the T-Mobile plans let you stream free without it counting against your data plan.

We considered T-Mobile for this reason but their abysmal network in our area made it impossible. An unlimited data plan is too expensive for us and I doubt they are going to get cheaper.

 

[icolove]

Another service i wont pay for.

 

[MacBH928]

$15/month is more than most people spend on music today. The calculations for revenue from streaming music has not been fairly calculated in my opinion. Every article making such claims that I have seen has made the fundamental mistake of comparing the revenue on a short-term basis which is unfairly weighted towards an album purchase, because if you look only at a month or a year's worth of revenue, an album purchases' revenue is weighted entirely on the front-end whereas streaming is revenue accumulated over time. Further, they never break out the 'revenue' per play for owning an album because that wouldn't fit their story line. Even at Spotify's low per-play rate, one only needs to get about 140 plays to equal the revenue from an iTunes track sale. Sure, not every buyer will listen to a track 140 times, but some will listen many more, and a streaming service opens the doors to many more potential listeners who would never actually buy the track.

Your calculations for streaming data consumption are a bit off. An hour of 256k streaming (higher than most services default rate for mobile) consumes about 115 MegaBytes.

You make very good points, but in the case of streaming, the investor would gain his income over a long period of time (2 years?) on the opposite of album sales where he gets $15 per album sold and he can sell anywhere from a 1000 to a million albums in one month. The question is , are investors (copyright holders) willing to wait such a long period to regain their investments and profit? Note, they will be very tight on cash for their next investment.

In your calculations for the music streaming, an hour a day at 115mb, will equal 3.5GB per month. Currently, I am on 7GB limit

 

[netdoc66]

I still see the beats deal as a complete brain fart on the part of Apple execs (ie, Eddy Cue and Tim Cook). They should have anticipated the growing importance of music streaming and had a killer streaming service in the works a long time ago. Instead, they spent $3B for mediocre headphones and a music streaming service with few subscribers.

To put that into perspective, they could've purchased Waze for $1B and still had $2B left over to buy Sennheiser and B&W and hire top talent to develop an amazing music streaming service, improve Siri and Apple maps and construct another data center.

You just don't get it. They did not buy "Beats" for the quality of the product. They brought them because of the "engaged fanbase". It's the reason Facebook brought "instagram" and "whatsapp". The "User Metadata" IS the product these companies make. SMDH...

 

[Lankyman]

Its amazing how parents have failed to educate their children in regards paying for what amounts to a glorified radio station.

I'm in the UK too so perhaps having been brought up with 'free radio' over here we can't quite fathom why our American cousins can't wait to pay for a similar service. It's amazing what impact brain washing can have on people.

----------

You just don't get it. They did not buy "Beats" for the quality of the product. They brought them because of the "engaged fanbase". It's the reason Facebook brought "instagram" and "whatsapp". The "User Metadata" IS the product these companies make. SMDH...

Phew! it's all built on sand. The patients are running the asylum.

 

[prospervic]

Chill out folks -- it's not the music-apocalypse

I don't get why this thread has become so heated -- it's NOT either/or, as others have pointed out.

It's been mentioned SEVERAL times on this thread that Spotify allows you to DOWNLOAD music to your device -- in 320k quality (ogg vorbis) to SAVE for later OFFLINE playback. So, while I'm at home and on wi-fi, and can choose from Spotify's huge catalog music I can listen to WHENEVER I WANT, WITHOUT USING MY DATA PLAN! (As someone already said, it's just like using iTunes.)

Now, I admit, I was strongly in the "own my music" and "stream over my dead body" camps. But when I discovered the above, I had an epiphany: I have the best of both. Now, I can audition whole albums without having to commit to buying them. (I can't tell you how many dud's I've had to sell at used CD shops. But that's not so bad -- it's all those un-sellable downloads that really annoy me!).

This has freed me from the burden of storing large quantities of not-listened-to-anymore CDs, and fretting about continuously declining hard drive space.

Like a previous poster, I've found wonderful albums on Spotify that I've later purchased in full (CD or Download), so the artist gets PAID. (And even when I "just listen" the artist STILL gets paid!)

I think what's going on hear is a fear that streaming will replace all other forms of music purchasing. That, if it ever happens, is probably a long way off.

Old-timers (of which I am one) -- try it out for yourself. (You might be surprised.)
Remember: to stop growing is to begin declining.

 

[Lankyman]

I don't get why this thread has become so heated -- it's NOT either/or, as others have pointed out.

It's been mentioned SEVERAL times on this thread that Spotify allows you to DOWNLOAD music to your device -- in 320k quality (ogg vorbis) to SAVE for later OFFLINE playback. So, while I'm at home and on wi-fi, and can choose from Spotify's huge catalog music I can listen to WHENEVER I WANT, WITHOUT USING MY DATA PLAN! (As someone already said, it's just like using iTunes.)

Now, I admit, I was strongly in the "own my music" and "stream over my dead body" camps. But when I discovered the above, I had an epiphany: I have the best of both. Now, I can audition whole albums without having to commit to buying them. (I can't tell you how many dud's I've had to sell at used CD shops. But that's not so bad -- it's all those un-sellable downloads that really annoy me!).

This has freed me from the burden of storing large quantities of not-listened-to-anymore CDs, and fretting about continuously declining hard drive space.

Like a previous poster, I've found wonderful albums on Spotify that I've later purchased in full (CD or Download), so the artist gets PAID. (And even when I "just listen" the artist STILL gets paid!)

I think what's going on hear is a fear that streaming will replace all other forms of music purchasing. That, if it ever happens, is probably a long way off.

Old-timers (of which I am one) -- try it out for yourself. (You might be surprised.)
Remember: to stop growing is to begin declining.

Well as an old timer myself I could just pick you up on a couple of issues. Diminishing HDD space. If I don't like an album I have paid to download then I simply delete it. You can always download it again when HDD space isn't an issue or you decide you did like it after all. I have iTunes Match so all my music and films are available to me in the cloud any way.

I have actually tried Spotify premium. It came to me free for 6 months with my Sonos Soundbar (Beats/Apple eat your heart out. That was a company worth spending your money on). Spotify was a good service but I still prefer having my own tracks so let the service lapse at the end of six months.

 

[prospervic]

Well as an old timer myself I could just pick you up on a couple of issues. Diminishing HDD space. If I don't like an album I have paid to download then I simply delete it. You can always download it again when HDD space isn't an issue or you decide you did like it after all. I have iTunes Match so all my music and films are available to me in the cloud any way.

I have actually tried Spotify premium. It came to me free for 6 months with my Sonos Soundbar (Beats/Apple eat your heart out. That was a company worth spending your money on). Spotify was a good service but I still prefer having my own tracks so let the service lapse at the end of six months.

Bravo for giving it a trying before deciding. I also use iTunes Match, and it's quite useful for managing my existing music collection. And yes, it does save hard drive space.

The point of Spotify is that it allows me to discover new music without the risk of buyer's remorse, which has prevented me from "pulling the trigger" on quite a few releases. (I know I can "sample" tracks in the iTunes store, but as I listen to mostly classical, 30 - 90 seconds doesn't really give a full enough impression of what you are buying.)

Also, through using Spotify I've learned to release the need to "own" all of the music I listen to, but instead only the music I really love. (Less is more!)

For me, Spotify makes an excellent adjunct to, not replacement for, my music collection.

 

[zhenya]

You make very good points, but in the case of streaming, the investor would gain his income over a long period of time (2 years?) on the opposite of album sales where he gets $15 per album sold and he can sell anywhere from a 1000 to a million albums in one month. The question is , are investors (copyright holders) willing to wait such a long period to regain their investments and profit? Note, they will be very tight on cash for their next investment.

In your calculations for the music streaming, an hour a day at 115mb, will equal 3.5GB per month. Currently, I am on 7GB limit

Yes, its not necessarily clear how it will play out in the long run but I can tell you there are certainly many songs we listen to via streaming where the artist has made far more via streaming from us than if we had paid for the track. I think that's the situation that is often missed in these discussions.

My streaming calculations were intended to be on the high side. Most services default between 64 and 128 k on mobile, using as little as a quarter of the data calculated. I have a 3GB plan, listen as much as i like, and have never approached my limit. I'm often on WiFi, and the apps often use intelligent caching in order to not download frequently played tracks over and over. I've just not found it to be even slightly an issue.

 

[Erastopic]

I use the iTunes Store when I want a song that I can not get through Spotify as their library might feel limited to some and for me this sometime occurs.

But if iTunes got a streaming service that works in the way like Spotify, Rdio, etc. I would leave Spotify with an instant.

Where you pay a certain fee every month to listen to whatever you want on the iTunes Store library and where you can sync your songs to play them offline and have an endless library.

Besides, a report said that streaming services are big incomes for artists as well as for the record labels like Universal Music. So personally, I can neither see Apple, the record label or the artist loose from it.

But thats a thing that will never happen or that is very very far out of reach.

 

[sdmarquart]

One simple question: When will the itunes app allow streaming of your home iTunes library outside your home network? I don't use any "streaming" services like Spotify since all the music I love is ripped to Apple lossless in iTunes and stored in my NAS. I've used programs like media tap, subsonic, Plex, etc but would prefer an integrated iTunes music app which streams your local content based on your iTunes login. Do you guys think this is something Apple might add with the rumored Beats streaming service?

Thanks,
Spencer

 

[jch200]

Just so long as Apple keeps Beats on my Sonos Speakers. I'd actually love to use iTunes Radio but Apple won't let Sonos put it on their speaker system. Makes no sense to me.

 

[Oletros]

You just don't get it. They did not buy "Beats" for the quality of the product. They brought them because of the "engaged fanbase". It's the reason Facebook brought "instagram" and "whatsapp". The "User Metadata" IS the product these companies make. SMDH...

You can't compare Beats user base with Instagram or Whatsapp user base

 

[zhenya]

One simple question: When will the itunes app allow streaming of your home iTunes library outside your home network? I don't use any "streaming" services like Spotify since all the music I love is ripped to Apple lossless in iTunes and stored in my NAS. I've used programs like media tap, subsonic, Plex, etc but would prefer an integrated iTunes music app which streams your local content based on your iTunes login. Do you guys think this is something Apple might add with the rumored Beats streaming service?

Thanks,
Spencer

This is what iTunes Match is for.

 

[Razeus]

With the music being made now, it's no wonder. Why would I pay for it?

 

[sammaffei]

Are you referring to Spotify? Because that's not what it is. You can download and save any album to your devices. Their music catalogue has almost everything. The monthly fee is less than the cost of *one* album per month. What's not to like? Spotify is incredible.

Agreed. Spotify is not a radio service. My whole family loves the freedom it gives them. And, frankly, if you purchase an album a month, it's definitely worth it.

I lean to Spotify now because it takes the hassle out of managing a digital music collection. If it takes me more than 15 minutes a month to maintain my music collection then I save money (as far as hourly wages go).

 

[ssgbryan]

"Level matched by ear" - Fail 1

At no point does the writer state HOW he switched from A to B - which matters. Fail 2

I doubt the alcohol helped.

If you can't measure it, it isn't a fact, it's an opinion.

/QUOTE]

Some people are all about numbers and tests (you) and some are about the experience (vinyl collectors). Today's vinyl sounds great. Far better than the dominate MP3 standard. It's awesome to sit down and dedicate time to listening to both sides while checking out the artwork that came with the album. It's like reading a good book.

I imagine that less than 1% of the world worries if they're flex capacitor reaches 40db on the who cares scale. You're splitting the tiniest of hairs.
Like the author said, you've got a bad case of CMS.

Lossy compression sucks @ss, on that we agree.

I was an audiophile long before digital showed up in the audio world. I have lived the experience thank you very much. There is a lot of historical revisionism going on today about life in the analog world. In the days of analog, no one took vinyl seriously. Serious listeners had Reel-to-Reel, not vinyl. I wish I still had my Akai - just to freak people out.

The experience was over-rated. I owned way too many half speed mastered LPs on super heavy vinyl (lovingly transferred over to RtR) long before CDs were launched out of the Philips and Sony labs.

I know all about sitting down & dedicating time to listen and check out the album artwork. I did it for a decade before the first CD rolled out the door. Still do it today with CDs.

It isn't Closed Minded Syndrome, it is experience. Analog was ditched for a reason.

The hipsters haven't learned the long-term issues with vinyl. Every time that needle is drug across the groove, it damages the LP slightly. The first time you forget to go through your cleaning regimen (and you will), you will do more damage. Not to mention all of the other ways that vinyl can get ruined.

Enjoy your pops and clicks along with 60hz hum and rumble unless, of course, you are replacing those LPs every 100 plays or so. Because that IS coming to those vinyl folks.

 

[Lankyman]

Agreed. Spotify is not a radio service. My whole family loves the freedom it gives them. And, frankly, if you purchase an album a month, it's definitely worth it.

I lean to Spotify now because it takes the hassle out of managing a digital music collection. If it takes me more than 15 minutes a month to maintain my music collection then I save money (as far as hourly wages go).

I suppose age may be a factor along with how eclectic one's tastes are. My own personal experience was I found the Spotify catalogue somewhat deficient.

 

[MacBH928]

Yes, its not necessarily clear how it will play out in the long run but I can tell you there are certainly many songs we listen to via streaming where the artist has made far more via streaming from us than if we had paid for the track. I think that's the situation that is often missed in these discussions.

I guess streaming could be a solution for piracy. People will probably pirate the track making the artist gain 0 from album sales, but however low streaming is its still making money. I guess I see why they opted in this business model. The low price of $15/m is probably fair for the users too.

 

[patent10021]

The biggest thing though is that I now have fallen in love with music again. I look forward to Record Store Day every year and it meNs gathering at s social spot like the record store to find music, talk music and love music.

I'm installing this in my daughter as well.

Is her name Lucy?

I think this is probably a really funny joke because of the autocorrect error but I totally am missing the Lucy reference.

Well, you said, "I'm installing this in my daughter as well." and Lucy ended up being a sentient computer so…

Oh well.

I had autocorrect change color into Colorado twice to me today simply because I chose to use that spelling even though I'm Canadian. Don't want to change my settings though.

 

[morespce54]

It's impressive to see how Apple has dropped the ball in digital music.

They had it all: a working online store with a huge selection of music, good physical and software players, a device connector that became a de-facto standard so that you could easily plug in your iPod or iPhone 4 into your hotel room's hifi set.

And what did they do ? Every version of iTunes got worse than the one before. Even worse Apple's marketing totally ignored the music streaming market. Now they bought a headphones brand and their more or less unknow streaming service for a fortune, just to realize that the brand doesn't really fit to Apple. They changed their phone connector and killed the standard.

It's funny because I feel that soon Business Schools will teach two lessons regarding Apple:

1. How Apple toke the world by storm in an already existing market with good marketing and stellar products (and make it boom even more) and

2. How Apple [post Steve Jobs] let an existing booming market down with weak marketing and less than stellar products...


Sort of Dos and Don't...

 

[Tech198]

Or u could just say "Apple had a disco ball, but they let go of the rope"

 

[hemanwomanhater]

I guess I'm old, or just don't get it...

I'll never understand "renting" music. I can't begin to see the appeal, I don't see any value.

If I want a semi-random stream of audio that I may or may not like, or be in the mood to listen to at any given moment, I already have that, it's called a radio... it's not dependent on an internet connection, and it's FREE.

I'll gladly pay to have the songs I actually like, stored on my devices, organized in playlists I can choose based on my mood, and not have to pay a monthly fee, and not be at the mercy of an internet connection and it's reliability (or lack of).

I can't begin to understand where anyone sees the value in the music rental business. Seems like flushing cash down the toilet to me.

Of course, I completely understand companies like Apple rushing to take money from suckers that are willing, hell eager even, to rent music.

Shrug.

Oh yeah..

And git off my lawn!

Sounds like you haven't even used the services this article is about. Spotify/Beats/Rdio are nothing like a "semi-random stream of music", nor is it even remotely close to renting. You subscribe to the service (for free, or up to $10 if you don't want ads but do want more features) and then you have access to a vast library of music that only rarely is missing something. It also streams in high quality and you can download music for offline use. You have access to the vast library and can listen to anything as long as you continue to use/pay for the service. They DO have radio-like services as well but it's an added feature on top of being able to listen to whatever you want whenever you want.

Sure, I see the benefits of buying CDs but there are definitely benefits to streaming services too:

1) Convenience. Nothing like hearing a song on the TV, and then immediately being able to play it, as well as that artist's entire catalog of music, effectively for free since I'm already paying for the service.

2) Listen anywhere. Phone, Apple TV, computer, Sonos, etc. It's all plugged in out of the box. I don't have to carry CDs, I don't have to rip the CDs and move these files between computers and phones manually.

3) It's cheap. $10 a month for almost all of the music I've ever wanted to listen to. Hell yea! That's the cost of one USED CD, and I can guarantee I'm listening to a lot more than one CD's worth of new content in an average month. I'm discovering new music thanks to my Beats subscription on pretty much a weekly basis or sometimes a daily basis if I'm on a kick.

Renting is more like what I do with iTunes and movies. I pay a ridiculous fee to have access to a movie for 48 hours and if I fail to finish it in time I'm hosed. Frankly the local video store in town is cheaper. I only buy a physical copy these days if it's something I really like and cherish, and if it's vinyl.