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

[patent10021]

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

But you like the music because it's emotional. Your brain and ears don't care if you own it. As long as you can listen to it anytime you want. With a computer a smartphone you should be able to listen to any song you want any time. 20 yrs from now people won't have a physical copy anywhere because it will be accessible from anywhere at any time from space. Pretty much how it is now. Owning provides no benefit over streaming if you're listening to it at will.

 

[Gym Hellwig]

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.

$50 per month for Spotify? LOL. Keep dreaming. Good thing you aren't their CEO. They would go bankrupt in a week under your leadership.

 

[Gym Hellwig]

What is all this talk about vinyl making a come back?

I know absolutely nobody that is reverting back to vinyl.

You must have a small social circle.

And most of the people buying vinyl aren't reverting - they're buying it for the first time.

 

[Luscious]

There's room for both those who want to own and those who want to rent. I'm down with both. I enjoy owning my favorite tracks and albums while using streaming services to find and listen to new music.

 

[goobot]

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

It gets boring listing to the same songs 100s of times.

 

[ssgbryan]

Sorry you are wrong. I've gotten back into vinyl lately and recently had the chance to play some high quality reissues on my rather modest system for friends. They were astonished. Boston's first album,Stevie Ray Vaughn, The Beatles recent Mono Box,Creedence Clearwater Revival all blew them away and gave them goosebumps. Top quality records are expensive,and I only buy music on vinyl I'm going to sit down and listen to seriously,not background noise while doing the dishes. Other than that I pretty much stick to CDs,SACDs or the new bluray audio discs. You can make a pretty good sounding CD or a horrible LP,that's what reviews and forums are for.

I'd urge you to check out a nice audio shop and listen to some vinyl,hopefully something familiar,You'd be surprised how superior it is today compared to the old mass market LPs...and downloads.

Why would I need a nice audio shop? I have a nice audio system (I love my Maggies) and a tuned listening room.

Downloads? Fine for live bootleg recordings from the '70's, but until someone provides loss-less format, I don't see the point.

Vinyl masks most of the issues with those recordings. Let me know how vinyl gets beyond 40dB signal to noise ratio. Have you compared the frequency response?

Bottom line - If you can't show it on an o-scope, it ain't real.

 

[ayale99]

Why would I need a nice audio shop? I have a nice audio system (I love my Maggies) and a tuned listening room.

Downloads? Fine for live bootleg recordings from the '70's, but until someone provides loss-less format, I don't see the point.

Vinyl masks most of the issues with those recordings. Let me know how vinyl gets beyond 40dB signal to noise ratio. Have you compared the frequency response?

Bottom line - If you can't show it on an o-scope, it ain't real.

This guy that tested vinyl on a $100k Marantz system describes what you are saying as a case of CMS. It's an interesting read: http://www.audioholics.com/editorials/analog-vinyl-vs-digital-audio

 

[iolinux333]

Sorry you are wrong. I've gotten back into vinyl lately and recently had the chance to play some high quality reissues on my rather modest system for friends. They were astonished. Boston's first album,Stevie Ray Vaughn, The Beatles recent Mono Box,Creedence Clearwater Revival all blew them away and gave them goosebumps. Top quality records are expensive,and I only buy music on vinyl I'm going to sit down and listen to seriously,not background noise while doing the dishes. Other than that I pretty much stick to CDs,SACDs or the new bluray audio discs. You can make a pretty good sounding CD or a horrible LP,that's what reviews and forums are for.

I'd urge you to check out a nice audio shop and listen to some vinyl,hopefully something familiar,You'd be surprised how superior it is today compared to the old mass market LPs...and downloads.

Your post is intriguing... but oh Lord I really don't want to go down that road again... Class A tube amps, dust, needles if sapphire... or diamond... balanced strobe turntables, etc etc. I don't even remember half the stuff any more and before I know it I'd be into $10,000 of mid grade equipment.. meh. I'll stick with streaming low bitrate music through my old Android phone with software graphic EQ and a cheap mono Bluetooth speaker lol!!!!!!

 

[iolinux333]

But you like the music because it's emotional. Your brain and ears don't care if you own it. As long as you can listen to it anytime you want. With a computer a smartphone you should be able to listen to any song you want any time. 20 yrs from now people won't have a physical copy anywhere because it will be accessible from anywhere at any time from space. Pretty much how it is now. Owning provides no benefit over streaming if you're listening to it at will.

I haven't kept a physical copy of music since somewhere in the late 90s. As soon as the first ripper appeared on Windows, it was insert CD, rip CD, toss CD in trash or give to someone.

I used to have speakers big as me and a giant computer that sounded the inside of a jet engine! Never again. I love miniaturization!!!!

 

[AlecZ]

I usually use my local library, but I like iTunes Radio sometimes when I'm working... except that it doesn't work with certain stations for some reason! Like, it almost never plays my Aram Khachaturian station, just plays for a split-second then stops. I have to fall back to YouTube or Pandora or even my SDR for local FM stations.

----------

But you like the music because it's emotional. Your brain and ears don't care if you own it. As long as you can listen to it anytime you want. With a computer a smartphone you should be able to listen to any song you want any time. 20 yrs from now people won't have a physical copy anywhere because it will be accessible from anywhere at any time from space. Pretty much how it is now. Owning provides no benefit over streaming if you're listening to it at will.

I'd be fine with this iff
1. I had infinite LTE everywhere for free.
2. I could put all my music I want to stream into playlists and have it work nicely on my Mac and iPhone.
3. there were no monthly service fee.
4. the said service would never go out of existence.

But since none of these conditions are met, I use iTunes with a library. No Internet required, nice playlist system, no monthly payments, and my files are always there only under my own responsibility.

 

[Michael CM1]

I would love to see one integrated product combining the Music app and Beats Music. My guess is it will be called Music. I would just like for Beats to be able to realize I have tens of thousands of songs purchased from iTunes so I can add those to playlists and not have to maintain two libraries.

Skins would also be a nice extension. Beats looks OK, but I would love to see optional skins to change the look.

Oh, and one more thing: I would pay $15/month for a Netflix style service integrated in a similar way with iOS.

 

[ThatGuyInLa]

The users that care about quality, artwork, DRM free, are the ones listening to LPs again.

 

[0098386]

I don't understand your question. Plus, I'm not advocating Spotify as better then owning a vinyl album, CD, or digital file. I'm on the side of paying for digital downloads etc.

On Spotify, if it's removed, then it's gone and you can't play it anymore.

No I understood the purpose of your post, just wondering if you knew what happened to removed songs.
Sucks that it's removed. One more reason to avoid using those services. I get my music from game rip torrents, CDs, iTunes+Amazon downloads, and slowly getting my vinyl collection converted to MP3 too.

----------

I used to have speakers big as me and a giant computer that sounded the inside of a jet engine! Never again. I love miniaturization!!!!

Whilst miniaturisation is pretty good for most things, for speakers I'd rather they remain big than use tiny, weak ones or headphones! Heh.

 

[xmichaelp]

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

If this technology was available 50 years ago people would embrace it then too. Has nothing to do with how much a generation "cares" about music... as if that is quantifiable anyways.

 

[MCDELTAT]

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

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

youve probably just never sat in front of a proper turntable then… I tend to keep most of my music in FLAC files because MP3 or AAC sound horrible after listening to a vinyl record. Better soundstaging, better audio frequency range…

On a statistical note. The highest selling album last year for vinyl was Jack White's "Lazaretto". It sold only 86,000 copies on vinyl, but it was 23% of the album sales. The majority of artists have adopted it as another secondary release platform. If you want to see what's new visit sites like ModernVinyl or check out labels that support the format: No Sleep Records, Anti- Records, Glassnote and many many more.

 

[Jsameds]

How much would have cost me the more than 60 different albums I have listened the last month on Spotify and Google Music for 16 euro?

You seriously listened to two different albums, all the way through every single day for a month without repeating any?

I don't believe you.

 

[512ke]

I think iBeats is a losing battle. With iTunes downloads Apple could force you to buy via their service by restricting the hardware. I don't see Apple now successfully being able to lock out the competition.

Nor can Apple differentiate its product when it comes to music streaming.

In TV, other platforms have original content. Netflix has series. Amazon has series. In music each platform will need unique original content.

Content is Beat's best and only hope to succeed where iTunes Radio failed.

 

[Oletros]

You seriously listened to two different albums, all the way through every single day for a month without repeating any?

I don't believe you.

believe what you want, it is not my problem. I will continue to listen to different albums while I work

 

[StoneJack]

I think we are talking two different issues here.
Increasing move to mobile consumption is what drives demand for streaming coupled with LTE or 3G coverage to provide sufficient bandwitch for higher quality recording, rather than your usual FM. As LTE develops soon video streaming on go will be usual as well. For music, the streaming is the future. Of course, not everywhere you have LTE or fast internet so streaming is also technically and physically limited.

On the other hand, Beats moved world to higher price, higher quality headphones. They all existed before Beats, it just made it very fashionable. Once you have very high quality, high price headphones you want the high quality recording, better than your average mp3. This requires lossless and to some extent, vinyl.

 

[Sandstorm]

Some people here just don't understand streaming and how radically better it is for average music listener. They remind me of the people who ~10 years ago dismissed digital music downloads, chanting how CDs are so much superior.

 

[MrCrowbar]

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.

Yup, unless you captured some analog signal with a radio or cable and recorded it as-is it on tape or vinyl, it's digital. We used to rip music from MTV to cassette tapes back in the day, we didn't call it "download though".

Unless you buy vinyl releases, your music is stored digitally.

 

[zhenya]

I'd be fine with this iff
1. I had infinite LTE everywhere for free.
2. I could put all my music I want to stream into playlists and have it work nicely on my Mac and iPhone.
3. there were no monthly service fee.
4. the said service would never go out of existence.

But since none of these conditions are met, I use iTunes with a library. No Internet required, nice playlist system, no monthly payments, and my files are always there only under my own responsibility.

I would say virtually all of your conditions are already met. Most people purchase enough LTE data already to listen to plenty of music. Compressed music is low bandwidth in a world of networks optimized for HD video. Further, once you've put together your playlist, you are free to download that playlist locally so you use no data at all.

Every major music service has playlists that function pretty much just like iTunes. Most of them work perfectly on your Mac and iPhone.

I'm not sure why you think you should get your music for free though. Do you steal the music you own?

It doesn't really matter if any one particular streaming service stays in business as you will likely be able to find tools to move your playlists from one service to another, which is effectively the same thing.

----------

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!

Even if you want to own music, the value in streaming services is that they do a FAR better job of widening your exposure to new music than the radio or most other sources available to people. Most of these services even have free options, but to me, the value is that I don't have to buy every song that I might want to listen to from time to time, and I get introduced to a ton of new music that I might end up buying.

Streaming/owning doesn't have to be an either/or dichotomy. A paid subscription to these services costs less than the price of 1 album per month. That's a pretty good deal for a music lover and a great complement to your music collection.

 

[roadbloc]

Of all the features in iTunes that would feel right at home and fit right in, and they make a separate app. But iOS apps and the tsunami of other junk nobody asked for in a music player are fitted in straight away.

I'm not fully understanding Apple's strategy here.

 

[omnisphere]

I use Spotify and I like it a lot, but many of my favorite artists are gone now.

Apple must hurry up to make it!

 

[bandrews]

I see where you're coming from but I disagree.

Buy 2nd hand CDs and most of them are $2 to 5 on Amazon, thats equivalent to around 3 albums per month on average compared to Spotify.

You get a physical copy that you can resell if you want that also acts as a backup, you get higher quality music, album artwork and zero DRM once ripped.

i see the convenience of Spotify is great, but it's a subscription so you're paying for life if you always want music.

Slightly illegal.

Deezer has introduced me to completely unknown artists. Artists I would never have heard of if buying CDs. There's no risk - you can listen to as much music as you like. Sync/favourite the stuff you like and remove the stuff you don't. As for quality -Deezer HQ is pretty good and as I don't own a £20k sound system, probably couldn't tell the difference anyway.

If there's something I REALLY like, I'll buy it on iTunes just in case it's removed from the service like the Jungle album was.

Oh, and I don't even have anything with a CD drive on any more. I'm guessing a lot of Mac folk are in the same boat.