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

[Poisonivy326]

Dude, Google play music. Download the albums you want for a monthly fee.

 

[ssgbryan]

It's really hard to gauge the interest or strength of vinyl records. Millennial speaking, I personally buy all my music on vinyl. Theres something just interesting about sitting down to listen to an album. It adds to the artform. There are a ton of bands that are adding it to ever release they do.

Why vinyl? Seriously. Have you added 8-track?

The sound quality for vinyl is horrendous, always has been.

 

[iolinux333]

How else would they be downloaded? I'm wondering why downloadable movies, games, and music are being referred to as "digital" downloads as opposed to just "downloads" or something more sensible and less redundant.

Hold a mic up to the speakers. People do it.

 

[lordofthereef]

I just picked up three months of spiritual for a buck. Figured I coikdntngo wrong there. I've been enjoying it but I dislike the fact that I can't stream to more than one device at once. This ultimately makes spotify not family friendly. I had a friend test Google music and he was able to stream to two devices, which is great. Afaik though there is no official Google music support on iOS. I am left hoping that apple does something that's around $10 per month, allows 2-3 simultaneous streamers (perhaps as long as using the same icloud login or something), and has most of their current purchasable content.

----------

Hold a mic up to the speakers. People do it.

But that wouldn't be considered a download. Holding a mic up to your soeakers is recording.

 

[iolinux333]

ugh just goes to show how little people these days care about music. I want to OWN the music i listen to and just have my albums as always

That is boring and expensive. I care for neither. Billions agree with me.

Sometimes boring is good, sometimes expensive is good and lots of people like those things. I don't.

To each their own.

 

[PowerBook-G5]

Having received a few iTunes gift cards, I redeemed them on iTunes and now have over $100 in credits.

I wonder if these will be able to port over to Apple's music streaming service, assuming there will be fees associated.

Normally I use the iTunes store for renting movies when I travel or purchasing a few songs occasionally.

I, also, received about $100 in iTunes cards over the holiday, and I have learned an important lesson: don't redeem all of them at once. I say this because I tend to spend less in iTunes if I don"t have a ton of credit. Also, if you don't redeem all of the cards, you can sell them to your friends/family for a (small) profit.
----------

I personally fail to see why people love streaming services sooo much. I would much rather have the music downloaded to my devices and be able to listen to it whenever I want, even when offline.

 

[iolinux333]

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!

Yes. You do not get it. Apple doesn't either. Here is how to get it:


1. Download Songza

2. Mess with it.

3. Suddenly, one hour later, you get it.

4. Facepalm how Apple paid 100x more for Beats than Google paid for Songza

 

[gnasher729]

How else would they be downloaded? I'm wondering why downloadable movies, games, and music are being referred to as "digital" downloads as opposed to just "downloads" or something more sensible and less redundant.

I suppose with a phone line analogue downloading wouldn't be impossible...

 

[BSben]

I have a bad feeling that Apple just have lost the touch when it comes to music. iTunes Radio is still limited to only 2 countries ( a disgrace), and the streaming business has already been taken. iTunes LP never made it (which is a shame). The iTunes store is in desperate need of tidying up (especially in multicultural countries, where all foreign language films are thrown into on category now).
Maybe Apple should have a year without new operating systems and other new features, but make the ones they have available to all their customers, and make them actually work properly.

 

[puckhead193]

i signed up for Spotify holiday promo... I got to admit, i'm starting to like it. I don't know if I will keep the service past the three months as I think $10 is a bit steep.

 

[GuitarDTO]

I signed up for Beats in December and I'll never look back. $10 per month is no question for me from this point forward. The ability to download, stream, listen to anything I want at any time, in addition to having infinite playlists and suggestions to choose from similar to Pandora or a normal "Radio" station....all without ads. It's a no brainer to me. Reading through these comments, it's clear there are many who don't have a clue how Beats or Pandora work currently. There seems to be a perception that it simply removes the ads, but otherwise behaves exactly like iTunes Radio or Pandora. Not the case.

The only thing that will ruin Beats/Spotify is if the selection goes down. Right now just about anything you could want is there and available to listen to on demand.

 

[boast]

I personally fail to see why people love streaming services sooo much. I would much rather have the music downloaded to my devices and be able to listen to it whenever I want, even when offline.

You can do this with Spotify.

 

[Frosties]

iTunes should go lossless

For me the one way iTunes can stay is to go lossless for the same price as is. There is no other competing point to have against high quality streaming as in premium Spotify.

 

[nouveau-apple]

I wouldn't be surprised if iTunes disappeared altogether.

 

[JazzyGB1]

iTunes UI plays a part

I genuinely believe the new 'improved' iTunes UI takes a share of the blame for the falling sales too.
I know there are other digital outlets, but iTunes is the biggest and so it's UI has a more profound effect on users.
Since the introduction of the 'streamlined' interface, it is a mess and more confusing to navigate than it was in the past.
I'm not saying that sales wouldn't be lower anyway (they almost certainly would be), I'm just saying that Apple have exacerbated the problem by alienating users with its terrible UI 'improvements'.

 

[malexandria]

Does beats have anything like Spotify Connect?

They better not. Spotify Connect broke my Spotify App and enabled someone to hijack my account! Worst part you can't even deactivate the thing. I had to go round and round with Spotify to get them to completely delete my information.

 

[iolinux333]

Wake me when the streaming market crash
Seriously, when the users feel it's a bargain and you don't lost money, either the suppliers(in this case: labels) or your investors lost.
The traditional streaming model is: you can't control what's playing (unless you are the DJ), and all you can do is changing stations, or tolerate a song or two.
I get the model "you are the sponsor, you don't need to listen to yourself", what I don't get is Spotify.
Spotify is basically the music version of Netflix.
But what they are extremely undercharged: Netflix charge $8/month, about ½ of buying a HD movie.
Spotify cover at least 100 times amount of songs (average user could watch about 5-10 movie, but playing 500-1000 songs/month is average amount people expect), so they should charge at least $50 to cover the cost (½ of 100 songs, each play 10 times)
But due to a loophole in the DOJ antitrust settlement, Spotify only need to pay the same amount radio station does, while giving end-user the choice to play whatever they want like Netflix.

Sooner or later, music labels will notice they actually loosing money using this model (I remember someone CEO did), and lobby the government to force all digital streaming service pay an highly-rised royalties.
At that time, let's talk about how music fans are continue shift to streaming service.

It will never go away. At most all the businesses might have to originate from overseas to countries that haven't been forced to adopt the anti-consumer, anti-competitive, and ultimately anti-artist and anti-creative horror of our "Intellectual Property" laws, a concept only two and a half decades old.

Imagine if Beethoven, who rewrote and added to all the themes of all his contemporaries, as well as drawing from all of the the folk music of all of Europe, was getting sued left and right by giant corporations every time he published a piece? He would have quit.

The creative process in the US has been absolutely killed by IP law, and it's why places like China, who just don't give a rat's ass about IP, are wiping us out.

 

[iolinux333]

But that wouldn't be considered a download. Holding a mic up to your soeakers is recording.

Oh I love a good semantics discussion!!! Yay! It's what makes internet worthwhile!!!

How about this: There are really no downloads unless the receiver is lower than the originator. Otherwise it would be a sideload, diagnonaload, or upload, depending.

 

[psylence2k]

There appears to be a lot of misunderstanding of how services like Spotify and Beats actually work.

If you need tracks available to you offline, you simply download them to your device and listen to them as desired. This is no different than syncing your iPod with tracks that you purchased in iTunes. The added benefit is that if there is a song you forgot to bring along you can get it at any time if you so choose. In our increasingly mobile world, this model is rich with value to a large percentage of the market.

but there is a difference, you're either paying a constant monthly fee in either dollars or ad time. Itunes sells tracks with no ads for a one time fee.

This is the main thing that people who are skeptical have a problem with. It's really all about your listening habits and preferences. I can see why to some people it's an amazing deal while to others it's not.

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!

It's all about your personal listening habits and preferences. Some people are promiscuous listeners of music who like to constantly listen, explore and discover new music quickly and easily. If you're one of those people then it's worth it. If you're not , well then it's not.

Wake me when the streaming market crash
Seriously, when the users feel it's a bargain and you don't lost money, either the suppliers(in this case: labels) or your investors lost.
The traditional streaming model is: you can't control what's playing (unless you are the DJ), and all you can do is changing stations, or tolerate a song or two.
I get the model "you are the sponsor, you don't need to listen to yourself", what I don't get is Spotify.
Spotify is basically the music version of Netflix.
But what they are extremely undercharged: Netflix charge $8/month, about ½ of buying a HD movie.
Spotify cover at least 100 times amount of songs (average user could watch about 5-10 movie, but playing 500-1000 songs/month is average amount people expect), so they should charge at least $50 to cover the cost (½ of 100 songs, each play 10 times)
But due to a loophole in the DOJ antitrust settlement, Spotify only need to pay the same amount radio station does, while giving end-user the choice to play whatever they want like Netflix.

Sooner or later, music labels will notice they actually loosing money using this model (I remember someone CEO did), and lobby the government to force all digital streaming service pay an highly-rised royalties.
At that time, let's talk about how music fans are continue shift to streaming service.

Labels already put in alot of research with the numbers before they signed these streaming deals. They already know all the pros and cons on each side numbers wise. If anything is gonna change it in the future it's gonna be if artists start to band together against it and somehow push the labels' hand.

It boils down to consumer habits and supply and demand. Those things greatly differ between the film and recording industry. Which is why the price models are the way they are.

You never owned the music you listened to. You had a license to play it, whether it be on a disc or iTunes download

I think what people mean is that they'd like to at least feel like they own it instead of having to constantly pay a recurring fee for it.

 

[Ty3009]

So many people on this forum still don't understand what the premium Spotify subscription offers. All these complaints about using data, not being able to download, etc.

You can download Spotify tracks directly to your device and listen to them offline. Same as iTunes. No ads.

I've listened to thirteen new albums this week. $9.99 for the entire month vs. paying, at $2 - $5 an album, $30 - $65. If you are constantly discovering new music then Spotify's offering is a fantastic value. That said, I hope that labels, artists, and streaming services are able to negotiate a business model that is mutually beneficial for all parties. I agree that it's a bit rough on artists right now.

 

[boast]

The creative process in the US has been absolutely killed by IP law, and it's why places like China, who just don't give a rat's ass about IP, are wiping us out.

Using our IP...

Maybe one day they will start creating everything, and we will copy them; wiping them out.

 

[slu]

My iTunes match and pandora do everything I need them to, which is why I will never pay for a premium radio streaming service. There's too many carbon copies of the same product.

Google Play Music All Access does everything I need it to do, across all platforms, and for a very reasonable price. I currently have no reason to look elsewhere for anything. Including Apple.

Frankly, unless Apple has a cross platform service on mobile, they will always be trailing competitors like Spotify.

 

[Nicksd84]

Just give me spotify with a better user interface and I'm sold.

 

[kds1]

People only like streaming because it's FREE (aka Spotify with ads). The overwhelming majority of people (kids) are not paying for it -they've grown up in a time when to them, music has always been "free" (and by kids, I also mean those twerpy "Millenials".) Plus, it allows people to listen to the latest fad music (aka. Taylor Swift, Nick Jonas, Lorde) without having to throw money down the toilet for it. Music people *really* like - quality music they will listen to for a lifetime - they will pay for (aka. paid downloads). I'll use Spotify for stuff I only care for at the moment, or to preview full tracks, but, if I really like it, I'll pay for it as a download.

Let's see...$10 a month and you can be your own "DJ" and listen to anything on Spotify as much as you want.

By comparison, $10 *might* get you one full album on iTunes. "Rent" virtually anything for $10 vs. owning one album for $10. From a purely economics standpoint in terms of quantity, Spotify makes a lot of sense to me.

Paid Spotify and the like makes no sense unless you want to piss money down the throats of the music companies on a monthly basis for the rest of your life vis a vis paying once for tracks you really love. On top of that, rights may change and *poof*, your beloved Britney track is no longer available on the "service". It's like Netflix-you'll subscribe, but every movie doesn't stay there permanently forever, nor is everything available on it. The movies you really cherish you'll buy on a DVD, Blu-Ray, or as an iTunes digital download (or some of you will just pirate it ).

 

[KdParker]

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

depending on your streaming service, it is a little more that just a glorified radio station.

Can't customize radio stations and you don't get all those anoying adds or breaks when streaming.