Apple wants to cut the price of Beats Music subscriptions to $5 per month - report

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 34
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    sog35 wrote: »
    look at overall company profit and then report to us. 
    Compare overall profit of Apple and Amazon.

    Apple does not charge for its OS updates.  That is not an Amazon tactic.

    Amazon charges for OS updates?
  • Reply 22 of 34
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,414member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

     

    Personally, I just can't wait to find out

    what price I'll be ignoring this at...


     

    yet you took the time to reply.

     

    boredumb is a fitting name


    Ouch - ooo - oh no -aaarrrggh!  

    Not the username!!!

    Such a clever gibe!  

     

    If only "sog" sounded silly in some way...:rolleyes: 

     

    You might consider that, just because my opinion about this is negative,

    or doesn't concur with yours, doesn't mean I won't want to express it.

  • Reply 23 of 34
    I will pay precisely £0 for music streaming, aka radio.

    I like to own music, not rent it.
  • Reply 24 of 34
    chris_cachris_ca Posts: 2,543member
    schlack wrote: »
    I bought the $99/yr Beats plan using a $100 iTunes gift card that I bought on eBay for $75.

    That brings my monthly cost down to $6.25/month. Pretty awesome.

    So it looks like Apple can already handle $6.25/month. Not too much further to get to $5/month
    In your case, Apple already collected $100 for the gift card when it was originally purchased. So you may have paid $6.25 a month but Apple already got the full $99.
  • Reply 25 of 34
    Itunes music consumers that bought more than $5 per month would now only pay $5 per month? This is a race to the bottom and my music catalog won't be a part of it. I'm anti-piracy of livelihood.
  • Reply 26 of 34
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,414member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by boredumb View Post

    Ouch - ooo - oh no -aaarrrggh!  

    Not the username!!!

    Such a clever gibe!  

    If only "sog" sounded silly in some way...:rolleyes: 

    You might consider that, just because my opinion about this is negative,

    or doesn't concur with yours, doesn't mean I won't want to express it.


    if you REALLY didn't care you would not even bother to click on the article

    you obviously care enough to comment on the subject


    Yes, I cared enough about it to read the article to learn about it

    before expressing my opinion...Is that approach really revelatory to you?

    ...Come to think of it, it might explain the semi-hysterical nature of at least some of your posts.

  • Reply 27 of 34
    sog35 wrote: »
    I will pay precisely £0 for music streaming, aka radio.


    I like to own music, not rent it.

    but then you have to listen to crap commericals half the time

    No commercials in owned music, nor in BBC Radio.
  • Reply 28 of 34
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Nothing.  They will be getting 30% of any revenue.

    Its just another eco-system play.  Another brick in building the massive castle eco-system that Android won't be able to match.



    Well Anazon Prime already has this plus you get free video streaming and free delivery.
  • Reply 29 of 34
    I was a MOG subscriber when Beats bought it. I wanted to like Beats Music. I really did. It is utterly awful.

    I've subscribed to 6 different streaming subscription services over the last decade. Beats is -- by several quantum dumps -- far, far worse than any of the of those six. I tried Beats when it first dropped and it was largely unworkable -- so, even though I had already started 'moving in' to my new service (favorites, it's all about the favorites/library) I stuck with MOG just so I could get another extended trial of Beats Music.

    And the second time around it at least worked. But the way it works is -- at least for music lovers like me -- terrible. It seems oriented to people who don't know what they like or want to hear. It's biggest 'feature' is this silliness called 'The Sentence' that just queues up a bunch of pop drivel the labels and Beats honchos want you to hear -- based on a 'sentence' you construct that is supposed to describe your mood. Or something.

    Even for just $5, Beats strikes me as a waste. (Not to mention an insult to the memory of MOG.)

    I've moved on. I now have 1,730 albums in my 'library' in my new service (run by a large search and mobile OS company) where I can find them and easily pick over them by cover graphic or search engine, quickly and intuitively drag and drop them into a quite good play queue (with a decent shuffle feature that shuffles new albums into the queue on the fly, if desired) -- and a Play Next feature -- all of it seamlessly integrated with my 'personal music locker' with rare/unavailable stuff from my personal collection.

    For fun, I also took advantage of a 3-months-for-1 trial of Spotify. I like my current service better -- but Spotify nonetheless blows Beats Music completely out of the water.

    By the way -- of those 6 services I've been subscribed to plus Beats music (so, 7) -- THREE of them were closed down by Beats Music CEO Ian C. Rogers. And if they close Beats Music, I guess that will make FOUR he's put in the ground. (FTR: MusicMatch Om Demand, Yahoo Music Unlimited, MOG, and... ? )
  • Reply 30 of 34

    With regard to the fellow ('cause it's always dudes, innit?) who thinks that "music is information and information is free"-- True, the record biz has been screwing musicians for a long time, as you note. But now YOU want to justify screwing them direct, sounds like. I'm for markets and products finding their own price in those markets through the interplay of supply and demand -- but when someone is stealing -- which is what copyright violation is -- there can be no fair marketplace. The laws of supply and demand can set a price for music -- when the thieves are out of the market.

  • Reply 31 of 34
    pazuzupazuzu Posts: 1,728member
    sog35 wrote: »

    Prime only has 1 million songs.  Beats has 20 million. huge difference.

    I'm a Prime member but not for the music

    Well I'm not into 19 million more hip hop and rap songs so I'm fine.
  • Reply 32 of 34
    If Apple wants $5.00 per month, Apple gets $5.00 per month!!!
  • Reply 33 of 34

    Cheaper for the same service is always better.

Sign In or Register to comment.