Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I can listen to the radio for free, or pay once to buy music and listen to it whenever I want for free. Why would I pay for a streaming service?
 
Simple; it's a matter of time (available) either spent obtaining (however the means) versus exploring (on-demand). I don't have a lot of spare time and would rather spend what free time I have enjoying it rather than working (more)...

I've never understood why people would pay to stream music. Just put your music collection in iTunes and synch to your iPhone or Google Music on Android. May be a little time consuming, but it's free and you get to listen to what you actually want to hear.
 
Here's a good guess at what Warner Bros. does with most of their money from music...
original.gif
 
I've never understood why people would pay to stream music. Just put your music collection in iTunes and synch to your iPhone or Google Music on Android. May be a little time consuming, but it's free and you get to listen to what you actually want to hear.

Because you can stream music you dont own. And, if the user experience is actually don't properly, it isn't glorified radio. It should be like YouTube: search a song, listen to it.
 
Just give me a streaming service where I can choose any song I want to listen to at anytime.
 
Beats @ $5 per month is going to work.
But only if they can get close to 200,000,000 subscribers.

I think I'm in so thats 1.
 
Beats @ $5 per month is going to work.
But only if they can get close to 200,000,000 subscribers.

I think I'm in so thats 1.

If I can search and listen to any song, and it's availble in the UK, count me in.

Total: 2. 199,999,998 to go!

----------

Just give me a streaming service where I can choose any song I want to listen to at anytime.

This! None of this limited skips bull.

If videos on YouTube can be supported with ads, at <$0.001 per view, can't we have music funded in the same way?

Only, instead of listening to an ad, you pay the subscription.

----------

I can listen to the radio for free, or pay once to buy music and listen to it whenever I want for free. Why would I pay for a streaming service?

If songs are 99c each, and Beats is aiming at costing $5.00 a month, it's cheaper, unless you buy less than 6 songs a month.

You might not want to own a song, just listen - like when you hear a song on the radio, find it on YouTube, etc :)
 
My only issue is the price.

It's too expensive at $9.99 a month.

I don't want to feel like I'm streaming my own music if it's already in my library, which I can sync to my phone for free.

I probably buy 6-7 albums a year and less than 10 individual tracks at most. It's cheaper for me to buy than to stream.

It's great for listening to new albums and artists and listening to the album in full as made me purchase a couple of albums, but other than that I have no real use for it.

Sure Netflix is the same price, but it's a vastly different product and well worth the $8 I pay a month.
 
If anything, I think prices need to go up. $5 is way too low for streaming. I think it should be $20 a month, minimum, to stream ad-free.

Or maybe $10 a month to have an ad-free radio-like stream where you have no control over the songs that play (you can only choose the genre). Pay $20 to $30 a month for you to have the ability to select the songs that play, ad free.

Of course, you can also offer a higher sound quality stream for an extra $5 to $10/mo.

Maybe give a discount for an annual vs monthly membership.

Ad supported radio/curated music streams would continue to be free.

I think this would be a fair pricing structure for everyone. It has a price point for all economic and music enthusiasm/interest levels. It also has the benefit of being more sustainable for the music industry, as a whole.
 
I've never understood why people would pay to stream music. Just put your music collection in iTunes and synch to your iPhone or Google Music on Android. May be a little time consuming, but it's free and you get to listen to what you actually want to hear.

Umm well I think you hit the nail on the head its more convenient. Some of us also like the fact that legit/legal and it supports the artist. Especially less popular artists who don't draw huge crowds at concerts. The one thing that might get me to cancel my subscription is the lack of smart list and be able to sort my music by year and genre easily.
 
In other words: SHOW US THE MONEY!!!

Oh, pay no attention to those starving people behind the curtain. They did the stuff we sell for us out of the kindness of their hearts. They were paid for their performances. What about US! He do all the hard work...
 
Again music labels show that they could care less what Customers actually want and what all they really care about is money.

Streaming music is a replacement for the Radio - why would I pay to listen? If i feel like paying for a song because i like it enough I want to own it and play it as many times as i want and be able to skip it or replay it as many times as i want or skip back 5 seconds to rehear one part.

Streaming music (like the radio) is advertising for musicians - it is for listening to music i would not otherwise pay for and to find new music i might want to purchase and add to my library.

The Music labels need to wake up soon and start listening to customers or they are all going to start losing their precious money....
 
Maybe instead of streaming music Warner could make a jukebox app where you have to buy virtual coins to operate.
 
Headline 2:

Samsung Remains Optimistic on Selling Large Phones as Long as People Buy Them.

Headline 3:

Random MR poster has to incorporate a Samsung blast into every comments section, regardless if it makes sense
 
If songs are 99c each, and Beats is aiming at costing $5.00 a month, it's cheaper, unless you buy less than 6 songs a month.

You might not want to own a song, just listen - like when you hear a song on the radio, find it on YouTube, etc :)

....which I can do for free.
 
Of course the labels want us to rent-to-play. That has a potentially endless revenue tail tied to it.

Here's the problem: until we got to the ripping stage, there was a regular re-buy model. Vinyl & Cassettes wore out. CDs solved much of the problem of wearing out and ripping from CDs meant you had a pristine copy of your music for up to forever. Music ripped from CDs I bought way back in the 1980s still sound exactly as good as they sounded when played the first time.

Then you have the generational problem. Kiddies grow up and leave the nest. They might like some of their parent's music. In the past, it was either take some of it with them or buy new copies of the same music. Digital copies meant the music could both go and stay- no obvious need to buy anew.

Then you have the singles problem. The music industry originally revolved around the single. But there was a golden period where one just about had to buy a whole CD to get the 1-2 good songs they actually wanted. iTunes and similar brought back the ability to buy just the good songs.

Then you have the used market problem. Used CDs that are playable will play the music as good as new CDs. So one could either lay out the $XX for a new CD or maybe 10%-20% of the new price for a used copy. End result is exactly the same. However, reselling a CD doesn't show as new revenue for the Music Studios.

Basically, digital (CD's) ended much of the natural push to re-buy. And once you have enough favorites in your own library of owned music, you can shuffle to keep the ears pretty stimulated with favorites.

Renting is usually spun in support for new music discovery but I suspect the ability to play 90 seconds of any song in iTunes, availability of music videos, classic (free) radio, online (free) radio, VH1 & MTV, etc offers much of that same benefit without the subscription fee. The problem may not be that people don't want to buy (or re-buy) new music (that will show as music studio revenues); the problem is probably that either the market has accumulated much of the music it wants and/or it has a multitude of cheaper ways to get new music it doesn't own vs. buying a new CD or a new digital download.

In my own experience, when I discover a new song I'd like to have, I check digital sources like iTunes (where it will usually be $1.29). Then, I'll check used CD prices and find that I can get that song plus other "best of" in collections like the "Now that what I call music" or similar or in "greatest hits" anthology (along with a number of other good songs) for close to that or maybe a few dollars more. Unless I spend the $1.29 or buy a brand new CD, the studio gets no new revenue even though I end up with the same net result. So they gripe about declining music sales but music still sells- just not in ways that show in their revenues.

Personally, I just don't see streaming as the salvation. If it's ad-driven, there's free radio that is ad driven (not $10/month and not $5/month). Instead, I think iTunes and similar largely got it right with the single purchase model. The problem is that now a lot of music buyers probably have a lot of the music they want to own. It will be pristine forever so they won't wear out that music by enjoying it.

If the studios want to grow revenues, what is needed is a lot of brand new music that the masses deem "must have". With somewhat rare exception, I still find myself favoring "oldies" over modern music. Give me some new music that sounds as good as the old stuff and I'm interested. Otherwise, I already have lots of great music synched to my iDevices: shuffle play, no commercials, $0/month.

I want to create dupe accounts to give you more thumbs up.

Couldn't agree more! :)

Glassed Silver:mac
 
I've never understood why people would pay to stream music. Just put your music collection in iTunes and synch to your iPhone or Google Music on Android. May be a little time consuming, but it's free and you get to listen to what you actually want to hear.

Streaming services like Spotify and Beats allow you to pick what you want to listen to.

I suspect you've been living under a rock, like the managers at Apple who made iTunes Radio, and so only ever used Pandora which, is the only streaming service that doesn't let you pick what you're listening to. Every other streaming service lets you pick the track you want to listen to.
 
I will never support Spotify with my money. They claim they give 70% of revenue back to artists/songwriters/musicians, but this is just marketing propaganda to make you feel good.

http://thetrichordist.com/2014/11/0...s-to-artists-isnt-that-fair-no-and-heres-why/

For big artists, they don't care (mostly, yet some have taken their music entirely off streaming playoffs, which I totally support). They earn millions with tours, album sales and merchandise. However, not everyone is Taylor Swift or Beyoncé. The biggest indie stream was paid 3k from Spotify. That's nothing!

If you want to support artists, especially indie or lesser known ones, buy their music and go to their shows. Don't stream it from Spotify. It's not a sustainable business model for anyone in the music industry that hasn't a big label behind them.


Well not sure how much the artists get from spotify but it has to be more than what they used to get from people who used to just download album/songs for free. I believe I saw a stat saying most people moving to subscription are people who didn't pay for music. People who like buying actual CD's and owning music on itunes seem to be keeping to that method.
 
I've never understood why people would pay to stream music. Just put your music collection in iTunes and synch to your iPhone or Google Music on Android. May be a little time consuming, but it's free and you get to listen to what you actually want to hear.
A lot of people like online streaming services because it helps them find bands they might not have heard before. They use it as a replacement for (or an addition to) radio, and all other sources of music.
 
I can listen to the radio for free, or pay once to buy music and listen to it whenever I want for free. Why would I pay for a streaming service?

With a streaming service you can listen to any song or album whenever. Ad free. Cost less than an album power month. Worth to me
 
any song ? haha

That would be a dream...... if every single song and or album to date was available on streaming, then sign me up...

Similar, if every single movie was available to stream, i'm good.. And is this across different services..... Double that if u except all of it to be available on a single streaming service....no chance.

Spotify or instance does not have that much good in the dance scene..... only classical and a bit of trance//dance stuff..

but we all know that's just not how it is.. And while more is becoming available, i reckon it will always be that way for some time anyway.
 
I've never understood why people would pay to stream music. Just put your music collection in iTunes and synch to your iPhone or Google Music on Android. May be a little time consuming, but it's free and you get to listen to what you actually want to hear.

You own 40 million songs?
 
...its like saying why would u want to sync with itunes anymore, when u can just download from App Store directly.. with iPhone 6

Plus not everyone has the capacity for 40 million songs.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.