Apple says U2's 'Songs of Innocence' album downloaded 26M times since debut

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 40
    mdriftmeyermdriftmeyer Posts: 7,281member
    FYI: This disc wasn't in my music directory [It wasn't pre-downloaded for me]. I downloaded it and it's a great disc.
  • Reply 22 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post



    They gave it to 500M people and only 26M downloaded it? To me that translates into them not even being able to give it away on some level. I downloaded one song. It isn't getting much play. I wish Apple liked House music more than U2... That I would download. 




    Well the 500M is exaggerated. That includes people who signed up for iTunes years ago and haven't touched a Apple product since.



    My guess is 10% of active users downloaded it.

    I was wondering about this. 

     

    Do we have any real numbers on how many people the album was made available to?

     

    26 million downloads in 30 days seems painfully low.  I wouldn't be surprised if at least a million people a day download itunes itself given how many devices apple sells.

     

    And this seems very un-apple to remind everyone of the fiasco with somewhat unimpressive numbers when you think about how many people could have downloaded a free album by arguably one of the more recognizable active bands in the world today.

     

    Sorry to be so negative, but no matter what the numbers, I can't believe apple would ever mention the name "u2" again.

  • Reply 23 of 40
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,415member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post



    What a waste of $100Million. How many starving children could have been fed with that?

    Talk about back fired in your face

    So, you are saying Apple would have been more likely to give the money to starving children than U2?

    Don't think I agree, although I wouldn't say the same for their label.

  • Reply 24 of 40
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member

    I downloaded it.

     

    I found the music "good", but it was dull. 

     

    It was like the easy listening version of U2 of the past. Nothing to write home about, but ok.

     

    It was an odd choice for Apple to do that. But it was odd for them to buy Beats  - the entire business.

  • Reply 25 of 40
    andysolandysol Posts: 2,506member
    techlover wrote: »
    Sorry to be so negative, but no matter what the numbers, I can't believe apple would ever mention the name "u2" again.

    What artist would you recommend? While U2 might not be your favorite, they aren't really hated by many. There are plenty who don't like their music or genre, but they are much less polarizing than say- Jay z or rascal flats. I can't really think of someone who would be better under these circumstances. The circumstances being someone accomplished and unpolarizing.

    And keep that 26m number in perspective. U2 is an extremely successful band, yes? 14 million customers bought some of their previous music. This is almost double that. That's huge! It's a win for U2 and a win for a huge chunk of apple faithful.

    This is pretty cool regardless of if you like them or not. I wouldn't download Beyoncé, but that'd be a cool download for others. It ain't hard to "hide" purchased music. It's a simple click of an "x" and then you're done. People just love to bitch. It's annoying. Annoying enough to bitch about....




    ...Dang it!
  • Reply 26 of 40
    pfisherpfisher Posts: 758member

    One rich band got richer at the expense of everyone else.

     

    As someone on some podcast said, "People don't value free." People will usually value what they pay for.

     

    For instance, a friend's uncle put a fridge out on the street and put a sign that said, "Free". It sat there for days. Then one day he put a sign that said, "$50", and that night the fridge disappeared.

  • Reply 27 of 40
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TechLover View Post



    Sorry to be so negative, but no matter what the numbers, I can't believe apple would ever mention the name "u2" again.




    What artist would you recommend? While U2 might not be your favorite, they aren't really hated by many. There are plenty who don't like their music or genre, but they are much less polarizing than say- Jay z or rascal flats. I can't really think of someone who would be better under these circumstances. The circumstances being someone accomplished and unpolarizing.



    And keep that 26m number in perspective. U2 is an extremely successful band, yes? 14 million customers bought some of their previous music. This is almost double that. That's huge! It's a win for U2 and a win for a huge chunk of apple faithful.



    This is pretty cool regardless of if you like them or not. I wouldn't download Beyoncé, but that'd be a cool download for others. It ain't hard to "hide" purchased music. It's a simple click of an "x" and then you're done. People just love to bitch. It's annoying. Annoying enough to bitch about....









    ...Dang it!

    To answer your question, if I were deciding at apple what to spend the $100 million spent on u2, I would not offer one artist, but a bunch of smaller/indie albums.  Use it as a way to introduce millions of people to tens of albums they would never have heard otherwise.

     

    What I was trying to say is that I am surprised after all the bitching and moaning over the u2 album, apple would ever bring it up again.  Regardless of its success.

     

    And I am trying to keep the 26 million in perspective.  If 500 million people (or how ever many users) are offered something for free and only 26 million take it within 30 days, I would not call that a success.  I agree 26 million is indeed impressive, but not when kept in the perspective that the free album was downloaded by 1 out of 20 people it was offered to.  Some of the 1 out of 20 downloaded it unintentionally at that, as the amount of bitching represents.

  • Reply 28 of 40
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    I like U2 and I downloaded it myself. That doesn't mean I don't cringe with the presentation at an iPhone event. Please, no more of it. 

  • Reply 29 of 40
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    boredumb wrote: »
    So, you are saying Apple would have been more likely to give the money to starving children than U2?
    Don't think I agree, although I wouldn't say the same for their label.

    I'm saying rather than getting that mediocre album I would have preferred Apple to give it directly to any charity on my behalf instead. It's a waste of money. More crony capitalism.
  • Reply 30 of 40
    Honeypot for:

    Apple haters
    U2 haters
    Watch haters
    IPhone 6 haters

    Starting to see how Huddler "communities" work.
  • Reply 31 of 40

    For a group of "tech people" y'all the biggest bunch of whiners I've ever seen. It was free. You didn't have to download it. If you have auto download on, that's your problem. Delete it. Shut the hell up and move on with your pathetic little lives, because if this is your biggest problem, you're doin' pretty good. Jesus, when did people become so whiney over every little thing.

  • Reply 32 of 40
    Originally Posted by cmfilms View Post

    Jesus, when did people become so whiney over every little thing.



    ~1970.

  • Reply 33 of 40
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    Oh Apple, I really like you too, just not the band.
  • Reply 34 of 40
    ''What’s the difference between God and Bono? God doesn’t walk down Grafton Street [in Dublin] thinking he’s Bono.''

    - Irish pop impresario Louis Walsh
  • Reply 35 of 40
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,134member
    I liked one track. I never complain about free music.
  • Reply 36 of 40
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member

    It's not a very high number when you look at some of the views on music videos on YouTube.

  • Reply 37 of 40
    ascii wrote: »
    It's not a very high number when you look at some of the views on music videos on YouTube.

    A video view only costs time and attention...and sometimes no attention is paid.
  • Reply 38 of 40
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    A video view only costs time and attention...and sometimes no attention is paid.



    It takes more attention than an auto-download :)

  • Reply 39 of 40
    davdav Posts: 92member

    a lot of whining over this, what, were you all raised by wolves?!  fine, be upset, but i'm going to sleep like a baby tonight.

  • Reply 40 of 40
    Usually the deluxe version sells more than the basic offering, which begs me to ask how many of those free downloads were deleted. Is 70,000 a typo?
Sign In or Register to comment.