Why is that a bad thing? I mean, it's no different than any other thread on here where people offer their opinions. The thread is about streaming, people are going to comment on whether or not it works for them.
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.
Warner Music Earned More Revenue From Streaming Services Than Downloads in Q2 2015
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Why is that a bad thing? I mean, it's no different than any other thread on here where people offer their opinions. The thread is about streaming, people are going to comment on whether or not it works for them.
When it comes to quality, streaming is the lowest.
Also, all those frequencies compressed/strips for streaming quality removes a lot of nuances that bring the song to life.
When it comes to audio quality, streaming is at the bottom but if you only care to listen to the chorus, jingles or need background audio, streaming will suffice.
Vinyl>DVD-A>CD>HD Radio>Terrestrial Radio>MP3>Satellite Radio>Streaming
Also, what will you do when your favorite Taylor Swift & Linkin Park catalogs are removed because their streaming contract ended. I guess you'll have to listen to something else..... assuming what you WANT to listen to is available or ELSE you MUST SETTLE!
Okay, I've followed a lot of this and have come to the conclusion that the small / new artist gets hosed with streaming. It would be nice to get a specific "typical" breakdown of what actually makes it to an artists pocket via stream, iTunes download, buy CD. It would be worth an extra $0.10 - $0.20 a song to know it's going to the right place.
In the meantime i bought a Spotify sub for 6 months...i'm not gonna wait Apple forever, lets see if by November their service is out, if not i will renew with Spotify for another six months.
Vinyl>DVD-A>CD>Streaming>HD Radio>Terrestrial Radio>MP3>Satellite Radio
Fixed.
All major streaming services lets you select reasonably high bitrate these days. The days of 96kbps are long gone, no-one listenes to that anymore when there are better options available.
E.g. Spotify Premium and Tidal Premium both have 320kbps. Tidal Hi-Fi (if you want to pay twice the price) streams at 1411kbps, which for all intents and purposes is the same as you would get from the CD if you played it at home.
Also remember that you can sync a certain number of songs (with Spotify it is limited to 3333 at a time, around 300 albums) to your local device, be it PC, Tablet or most typically cell phone. So you do not actually have to be online with a good connection all the time which is one of the major misconceptions lots of people have about streaming services.
I always sync the playlists/albums I listen most to at any time to my cell phone when I am connected via Wi-Fi at home (in the best available quality of course) so I am not at the mercy of the cell network when travelling.
Last edited:
Original Mater Tape > 24/96 bits FLAC > Vinyl = CD > MP3 > Streaming
* Vinyl = CD, to be fair,i mean i know many audio cd's are compressed and distort but vinyl has hiss and skip so currently none of them are the optimal audio experience. Some people prefer vinyl i prefer cd's. If cd's currently are old, vinyl is prehistoric.
Waiting here for Apple Audio lossless files to finally say goodbye to the cd...
Last edited:
Or, if there is an artist or song I like, I'll buy the album or song on iTunes. The same as I do now if I hear a song I like on the radio.
In Nordic countries, 20-25% of the population are paying for a music subscription. If and when that level of penetration is reached in the US, we will reach levels of spend similar to or above those of the late 90s.
Look at things like cable TV, mobile phones, Netflix... an easy to use, subscription based service can create huge revenue streams and reach mass market in about a dozen years.
----------
Nice colours but the data is crap. It blends ad-supported and paid tiers and some of the numbers are just plain wrong.
It doesn't have to be... For instance, Qobuz (streaming service in France) has a premium service that streams in lossless CD quality ((FLAC 16 Bits / 44.1 kH). And they're supposed to be working on streaming studio masters (24 bits and from 48 to 192 kHz). With the bandwidth available to most of us, streaming studio masters is really not a problem...
Spotify pays out the money like this:
The calculate all incoming money into one pile. That pile is then divided with amount of plays. So hit artist gets loads of money and indie artists get scraps.
What's wrong in that system is that there is a a lot of premium users who do not listen to hit artists, but still their monthly fee goes to those hit artists and not for those he actually listens.
If i would bring in 1,000 premium users and they would listen only my music. I would have generated 10K/month for spotify and i would still get pennies. Reason is that even if i get 10k/month plays from my fans it's nothing compared to millions of streams what hit artists get.
In fair streaming system you would get paid from the accounts that listen your music. 1,000 ppl subscribe to premium and only listens to five artists. No problem, all that money is divided with those five artists and nobody else.
It's never gonna happen as big labels and big artists would be the biggest loosers. "Loosers" as currently they get paid from other ppls work.
Yep, and then the payment to the rights owners will of course be on a whole other level from services like Spotify than it is today if it can get close to the number of people that used to buy music back in the day.
Until (if) we reach those numbers though - which will have to be more than 70 million paying subscribers in the US alone (Spotify has 15 million worldwide today...), it makes very little sense to compare the amount of money streaming services generate to the total sales numbers of 'yesterday'.
This is how it is presented in the press time and time again in articles about streaming, and it really annoys me:
"We used to make millions from CD sales, and now Spotify gives us a few thousand bucks".
People compare - for some weird reason - the total worldwide sales from the CD era with what they earn today from a single service that has fewer customers than there are people living in the state of New York. Anyone can see that this is flawed logic, and it surprises me that even traditionally trustworthy media that in most other cases would never ever compare apples and oranges in this way without losing their credibility do not point to this simple fact in the articles.
Last edited:
You're incorrect. What's generally compared is the TOTAL revenue of the music business between pre-internet and post internet.
Here's such an example:
