Revised music royalty rules could hurt Apple's Beats Music, iTunes Radio

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 65
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member

    .

  • Reply 42 of 65
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

     

    Still no iTunes Radio in the UK. I wonder whether it will ever arrive, or if we'll get Beats Music instead. We don't have that, either.


     

    You're not missing anything. Random play music services like Pandora suck and iTunes Radio is even worse.

     

    On demand services are great but Beats is not yet available outside US. In the mean time I'd suggest Rdio or Spotify (although the latter's business model doesn't seem sustainable.)

  • Reply 43 of 65
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Chez Whitey View Post



    I tried Beats for a few weeks, IMO iTunes Radio is better than Beats & Pandora is better than iTunes Radio

     

    Wow, that's the exact opposite of my view. So you like being fed random, commercially-programmed music without any ability to play the exact songs you want, in the order you want, or to have music recommended to you by human curators who know anything about music?

  • Reply 44 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     

     

    Wow, that's the exact opposite of my view. So you like being fed random, commercially-programmed music without any ability to play the exact songs you want, in the order you want, or to have music recommended to you by human curators who know anything about music?


    When listening to "radio" type services I prefer to be fed random music in any order it is provided to me. IMO this makes a much better music discovery experience. Why The **** would I want to listen to songs I already know when listening to 'radio". That is what has made "radio" suck for a century now... 

    Each to his own I guess. 

  • Reply 45 of 65
    macxpressmacxpress Posts: 5,827member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     

     

    Apples to oranges comparison. Spotify, Rdio, and Beats are on-demand services, allowing users to listen to whatever they want, whenever they want. Pandora and iTunes Radio are radio-like services that play random songs supposedly based on the listener's tastes, but often do so poorly.

     

     

     

    iTunes Radio is like Pandora. Beats Music is more like Rdio and Spotify. Totally different concepts.

     

     

     


     

    Doesn't matter, a music service is a music service. They still compete against each other. You can't tell me that Pandora doesn't compete with Spotify, so why is it any different between Beats Music and iTunes?

     

    When is the last time you've tried iTunes Radio? Its actually worked quite well recently for me. Yes, it used to suck but now it works pretty well. They've stopped playing songs 2 times in a row, when you tell it not to play a song it no longer plays it, its quite good at suggesting music you might like based on what you've previously told iTunes what you like, etc. 

  • Reply 46 of 65
    apple ][ wrote: »
    blitz1 wrote: »
     
    Now tell me, awesome-scientific guy, how scientific is your post?
    How fact-driven is it?
    What are the criteria to bet your left nut on?

    It's a prediction. My predictions are more often correct than not. That's not to say that I am never wrong. It happens on rare occasions, and I will readily admit when I am wrong.

    It is based on my above average knowledge of Apple related things and it's also based on a hunch of course, which is basically an educated guess. There is always a certain degree of randomness and uncertainly involved when predicting future events.

    Would you be willing to bet against me?

    I doubt it.

    Indeed. The lawsuit means that it is almost inevitable that there will be more bad news, at least in the short term.
  • Reply 47 of 65
    freediverx wrote: »
    arbiter8 wrote: »
    I thought iTunes Radio was ahead of Spotify: http://appleinsider.com/articles/14/03/11/6-months-after-launch-apples-itunes-match-already-more-popular-than-spotify


    So I'm not sure why the article says "Apple's streaming services remain behind market leaders Pandora and Spotify in terms of user adoption"

    Apples to oranges comparison. Spotify, Rdio, and Beats are on-demand services, allowing users to listen to whatever they want, whenever they want. Pandora and iTunes Radio are radio-like services that play random songs supposedly based on the listener's tastes, but often do so poorly.

    macxpress wrote: »
     
    I'm still trying to figure out why there's still both Beats Music and iTunes? Why does Apple need 2 music services that compete against each other? Surely, there has to be a way to merge them into 1 service. Maybe in time...

    iTunes Radio is like Pandora. Beats Music is more like Rdio and Spotify. Totally different concepts.
    A falling tide grounds all boats? Since streaming music is only a corollary business for Apple, this will not be the existential crisis it will be for others.

    Apple's music sales have been doing poorly as users migrate to streaming services. That is the key reason behind Apple's purchase of Beats.
    pazuzu wrote: »
    Bad deal. Wake me when it shows a profit off the $3B acquisition.

    Beats' headphone business generates over $1 billion in revenue, selling high priced products with fat profit margins. It shouldn't take long for Apple to recoup their acquisition cost based on this alone. Meanwhile, Apple desperately needs Beats' on-demand music service since iTunes music sales have been circling the bowl for some time now and iTunes Radio, frankly, sucks.

    Your concern trolling of Apple's supposedly weak music sales has no basis in reality, as Apple have never released their music sales figures.
  • Reply 48 of 65
    freediverx wrote: »

    Wow, that's the exact opposite of my view. So you like being fed random, commercially-programmed music without any ability to play the exact songs you want, in the order you want, or to have music recommended to you by human curators who know anything about music?

    Duh-that's what radio is. It's kind of popular with one or two people.
  • Reply 49 of 65
    The trouble with iTunes Radio is that you cannot. "Like" and " not like" song or even skip them (can you ?) like with Pandora. That's the best way for the system to learn what you like and what you do not like. This simple omission shows that Eddie Cue is clueless as to what is most destlireable in a streaming service, I think, and what makes Pandora better.
  • Reply 50 of 65
    Originally Posted by koop View Post

    Sounds cute but it's really Apple friendly media that guzzles this stuff like it's the fountain of youth.

     

    There IS no Apple-friendly media. That’s why this is happening. How’s that confusing?

     

    Originally Posted by justbobf View Post

    The trouble with iTunes Radio is that you cannot. “Like” and “ not like" song...



    That’s not trouble. That’s Apple saving human civilization.

  • Reply 51 of 65
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 767member
    cali wrote: »
    I hate black people and hip-hop!!!!!!!!!!!!!111111
    Wow. Please take your racism elsewhere! What a despicable comment!!!
  • Reply 52 of 65
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    bulk001 wrote: »
    Wow. Please take your racism elsewhere! What a despicable comment!!!

    He was joking.
  • Reply 53 of 65
    bulk001bulk001 Posts: 767member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    He was joking.
    Then I stand corrected but it would not be the first time people have used this forum to promote their racial views.
  • Reply 54 of 65
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by freediverx View Post

     

     

    Wow, that's the exact opposite of my view. So you like being fed random, commercially-programmed music without any ability to play the exact songs you want, in the order you want, or to have music recommended to you by human curators who know anything about music?




    Yes, yes I do and if you put iTunes Radio station settings to "discover" when you create a station, you won't hear much "commercially-programmed" stuff.

     

    Outside the US I'm still waiting to try Beats music, Spotify is overpriced, iTunes Radio works for me.

  • Reply 55 of 65
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Fuzzypaws View Post

     

    Do you really think that if the industry groups are able to excise more royalties you'll actually see any of it? Because if so, you're wrong. The solution isn't to change the percentage charged to broadcasters, which since it's a percentage and not a flat number automatically rises with inflation and should be fine in perpetuity. Instead, the answer is to force the industry groups to actually go back to distributing money fairly and giving the artists their share.


     

    I think you're confused about what a "licensing organization" such as BMI and ASCAP does.  They're not "industry groups" as the phrase brings to mind.   

     

      The current model of how streamers, discovery systems and download sites are provided with their product will not survive.  There is nothing at stake by the royalties being shifted back to music providers making more than the are given now except that more creatorrs can survive and the newly birthed internet companies will have to scale back their projected profits.   If this is beaten down they will end up with on top of the hill but with no new music to use.   More artists and labels will simply ramp up the ways to direct listeners and buyers to their own sites, which instead of containing links to other places where the music can be purchased will simply offer it only via their own companies and cooperatives and they will stop using large services altogether.  Unlikely today, not unlikely years down the road.   There is no attraction getting 15,000 downloads and 6,000 plays of songs over a year from an album you've spent a year funding and making if it results in literally $13,000 for the year.  If you can make that selling a fraction of the amount it eliminates any value there is in signing on with the companies and getting the big numbers.   It's simply not sustainable on the creator's end regardless of how it's $ XXX instead of $ YYY for the radio/streaming/download company.

     

    What "Industry groups" are you referring to that have something to do with distributing money more fairly giving back artists their share?  

  • Reply 56 of 65
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    More artists and labels will simply ramp up the ways to direct listeners and buyers to their own sites, which instead of containing links to other places where the music can be purchased will simply offer it only via their own companies and cooperatives and they will stop using large services altogether.


     

    If a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear?

     

    If we take your suggestion to its final conclusion it would result in countless websites for bands/musicians. How in the hell is someone going to get people to come to their site and purchase their music over the gazillion other sites out there? Most of those websites would be the same as the tree in the forest, lost among countless others and irrelevant.

     

    To further complicate matters, who wants to buy music individually from numerous musician websites using god only knows how many different payment systems? Not very secure for the customer, so you'd need some sort of common payment system to make customers feel secure, and then you're back to having things tied together by some larger company.

     

     

    Which reminds me of something.

     

    I've worked in the music industry for many years (as a studio engineer and a touring engineer). I always come across people who look down on "top 40" or "commercial" music. Some of their points are valid (like the poor quality of the fluff being passed off as music). They're always trying to get me to listen to some obscure band they "discovered" who are usually "automatically" good simply because they're NOT being played on commercial radio. As if any band that's successful and gets airplay is somehow inferior.

     

    I always give them the same answer: I only have a fixed amount of time in my life to listen to music. I have a large collection of artists I like. I also have a few radio stations/shows I listen to because they align with my tastes. This is all I really need. I don't need to spend time seeking out all these small bands from all over the globe to avoid listening to what's popular. I like what's popular. And I dislike people (elitists) telling me there's something wrong with me or that I'm "missing" all the fantastic music.

     

    Which is why I like the "tree falls in the forest" example. I don't care about all these musicians that nobody has heard of. My life doesn't suffer because I've never had a chance to listen to them. I have lots of stuff I already like to listen to. /rant

  • Reply 57 of 65
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    More artists and labels will simply ramp up the ways to direct listeners and buyers to their own sites, which instead of containing links to other places where the music can be purchased will simply offer it only via their own companies and cooperatives and they will stop using large services altogether.


     

    If a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear?

     


     

    If your album sells 300,000 copies and 1,000,000 downloads and you make 20% of what you did in your worst year and for the first time ever you can't make the mortgage will you ever bother making another record?

     


     

    If we take your suggestion to its final conclusion it would result in countless websites for bands/musicians. How in the hell is someone going to get people to come to their site and purchase their music over the gazillion other sites out there? Most of those websites would be the same as the tree in the forest, lost among countless others and irrelevant.

     


     

    That's a ridiculous argument coming from someone who says they don't want to listen to or buy new music ever.  So how do you actually care about this aspect and how it would deter you?

     


     

    To further complicate matters, who wants to buy music individually from numerous musician websites using god only knows how many different payment systems? Not very secure for the customer, so you'd need some sort of common payment system to make customers feel secure, and then you're back to having things tied together by some larger company.

     


     

    Why is it any less secure than whatever anyone buys using the same systems now?  Aside from the fact that there's nothing that would cause "god knows how many different payment systems" more than what we have now.  We already have a few handfuls and the world hasn't collapsed because no one can decide what to do.


     

    Which is why I like the "tree falls in the forest" example. I don't care about all these musicians that nobody has heard of. My life doesn't suffer because I've never had a chance to listen to them. I have lots of stuff I already like to listen to. /rant

     


    That's fine.  Nothing wrong with that.  But it means you're the wrong guy to have perspective on what the music business should do moving forward for obvious reasons.

  • Reply 58 of 65
    jlandd wrote: »
     
    More artists and labels will simply ramp up the ways to direct listeners and buyers to their own sites, which instead of containing links to other places where the music can be purchased will simply offer it only via their own companies and cooperatives and they will stop using large services altogether.

    If a tree falls in the forest, does anybody hear?

    Which is why I like the "tree falls in the forest" example. I don't care about all these musicians that nobody has heard of. My life doesn't suffer because I've never had a chance to listen to them. I have lots of stuff I already like to listen to. /rant

    Well said.

    Sorry for truncating your quote, but I agree with it all.

    Life is short. No doubt there is a ton of great music which I haven't heard, but never mind. Youth likes seeking out lots of music because it has more time on its hands and their brains are spongey. As one gets older, minds get set, and bad music is quickly dismissed. When you know what you like, there is less incentive to explore. I still do, but with a narrower focus.

    It seems pretty clear to me that the streaming services like Pandora and Spotify in their current incarnation don't have a sustainable business model. I imagine that they will either collapse or be subsumed into larger operations.
  • Reply 59 of 65
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    If your album sells 300,000 copies and 1,000,000 downloads and you make 20% of what you did in your worst year and for the first time ever you can't make the mortgage will you ever bother making another record?


     

    First off, where is it written that because you make an album that you're ENTITLED to make your mortgage payment (or even make a living)? I'll expand on this below...

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    That's a ridiculous argument coming from someone who says they don't want to listen to or buy new music ever.  So how do you actually care about this aspect and how it would deter you?

     


     

    Nowhere in my post did I say I don't buy new music. I did say: "I also have a few radio stations/shows I listen to because they align with my tastes." This is how I discover new music. By listening to shows that I like and the stuff they decide to play.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    Why is it any less secure than whatever anyone buys using the same systems now?  Aside from the fact that there's nothing that would cause "god knows how many different payment systems" more than what we have now.  We already have a few handfuls and the world hasn't collapsed because no one can decide what to do.


     

    Way to miss the point. There's a reason people like iTunes or Amazon. You can enter your payment information once, and use it to buy a wide range of products. Why should I have to enter it several times on different sites depending on who they choose to use for payment processing? It's inherently less secure to have your payment information on 10 sites vs 1 site.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    That's fine.  Nothing wrong with that.  But it means you're the wrong guy to have perspective on what the music business should do moving forward for obvious reasons.


     

    No, I'm the perfect guy. I buy my music. I don't pirate or torrent anything and have a very strong opinion of those that do (I refer to them as assholes). I have literally bought several thousand albums in my life (including a large number of LP's). I continue to buy new music at a rate of about 1 album per week on average.

     

     

     

    There's one big problem with musicians that I mentioned at the top. So many have a sense of ENTITLEMENT. They sit back and look at Justin Beiber raking in millions and whine about the fact they can barely get by despite the fact they have far more talent than Beiber does.

     

    Sorry, but you are in no way entitled to make a living as a musician (or for that matter in any artistic field like writing or painting). You want to earn a living? Get a real job. Or learn a trade. Don't create art and then bitch when nobody wants to buy it. And don't bitch when someone else creates art that you hate, but many people like making that artist successful.

     

    Art is like a lottery - if you come up with something at the right time, and get discovered by the right person, then you could make it big. That happens to 1% of the population. The other 99% are starving artists, and the reason they stay starving is because of the chip on their shoulder that prevents them from actually getting a REAL job.

  • Reply 60 of 65
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    If your album sells 300,000 copies and 1,000,000 downloads and you make 20% of what you did in your worst year and for the first time ever you can't make the mortgage will you ever bother making another record?


     

    First off, where is it written that because you make an album that you're ENTITLED to make your mortgage payment (or even make a living)? I'll expand on this below...

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    That's a ridiculous argument coming from someone who says they don't want to listen to or buy new music ever.  So how do you actually care about this aspect and how it would deter you?

     


     

    Nowhere in my post did I say I don't buy new music. I did say: "I also have a few radio stations/shows I listen to because they align with my tastes." This is how I discover new music. By listening to shows that I like and the stuff they decide to play.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    Why is it any less secure than whatever anyone buys using the same systems now?  Aside from the fact that there's nothing that would cause "god knows how many different payment systems" more than what we have now.  We already have a few handfuls and the world hasn't collapsed because no one can decide what to do.


     

    Way to miss the point. There's a reason people like iTunes or Amazon. You can enter your payment information once, and use it to buy a wide range of products. Why should I have to enter it several times on different sites depending on who they choose to use for payment processing? It's inherently less secure to have your payment information on 10 sites vs 1 site.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

     

    That's fine.  Nothing wrong with that.  But it means you're the wrong guy to have perspective on what the music business should do moving forward for obvious reasons.


     

    No, I'm the perfect guy. I buy my music. I don't pirate or torrent anything and have a very strong opinion of those that do (I refer to them as assholes). I have literally bought several thousand albums in my life (including a large number of LP's). I continue to buy new music at a rate of about 1 album per week on average.

     

     

     

    There's one big problem with musicians that I mentioned at the top. So many have a sense of ENTITLEMENT. They sit back and look at Justin Beiber raking in millions and whine about the fact they can barely get by despite the fact they have far more talent than Beiber does.

     

    Sorry, but you are in no way entitled to make a living as a musician (or for that matter in any artistic field like writing or painting). You want to earn a living? Get a real job. Or learn a trade. Don't create art and then bitch when nobody wants to buy it. And don't bitch when someone else creates art that you hate, but many people like making that artist successful.

     

    Art is like a lottery - if you come up with something at the right time, and get discovered by the right person, then you could make it big. That happens to 1% of the population. The other 99% are starving artists, and the reason they stay starving is because of the chip on their shoulder that prevents them from actually getting a REAL job.


     

    You missed my entire point by taking the "musicians sense of entitlement tact", which has never been part of the equation and couldn't be further from where I was speaking from.  Which is that if you have a business model where a product can be good and worthwhile that does in fact sell a lot, and the creator's share has been whittled away at (again, talking about people buying a lot of it, not frustrated musicians who make music no one wants) they will stop letting the streamers etc use their music in favor of any other system they can use that uses a more fair split, for better or worse.  And THAT's when the Justin Biebers will be ALL that we can hear.  The only sense of entitlement I see is from the corporations who complain they won't be able to maintain profitability/satisfy stockholders if the split is moved.

     

    It's the same thing that happened in other industries, and the result of the greed of the major clothing sellers is that the previously valid US textile industry is completely shuttered, and general manufacturing is at a barely chart making level.   No sense of entitlement, just being told their product will get them 80%, then 60%, then 40%, then 25% of what it used to.  Oh, can't do that?  We'll get it elsewhere where it's dirt cheap regardless of what it is.  Which is how industries, including the music buying industry, can die same as the sock mills.  Whatever fantastic artists you still love from your collection would mostly not bother to do it if starting out today.  Do you feel it's because of their sense of entitlement?  No, it's a broken model for everyone but the distributers.

     

    The rest I don't feel like defending as you're misinterpreting too much.  Rather than pointing out what I see as wrong with all the rest of your points I'll just say we see things differently.

Sign In or Register to comment.