Spotify is not the answer. I feel that the best solution would be a combined purchase/subscription model, whereby one can buy tracks to keep forever, as well as access all the content on iTunes.
$1.29 songs are killing iTunes.
Labels now pay for being too greedy.
Given the amount of inflation across all sectors over the last ten years, songs going from $.99 to $1.29 is a small increase, especially since they became DRM free with that move.
Spotify is not the answer. I feel that the best solution would be a combined purchase/subscription model, whereby one can buy tracks to keep forever, as well as access all the content on iTunes.
Again, iTunes Radio already does all that. :rolleyes:
Yet oddly Google's music service isn't free and has no ad-supported version.
Don't kid yourself, Google's music service isn't Google Music or Google Play it is YouTube. And YoutTube is free and ad-supported. My daughters both listen to over 50% of their music on YouTube. It allows them to choose which song they want to listen to when they want to listen to it, and it doesn't cost them a thing.
Don't kid yourself, Google's music service isn't Google Music or Google Play it is YouTube. And YoutTube is free and ad-supported. My daughters both listen to over 50% of their music on YouTube. It allows them to choose which song they want to listen to when they want to listen to it, and it doesn't cost them a thing.
Ummm, then not at all like music streaming? I can see where some would rather search out specific songs rather than use any streamer. They like what they like. Perhaps why there's been regular rumors of a paid version YouTube media service in the works?
EDIT: Apparently not just a rumor. Google has said they will have have a subscription YouTube music very soon, probably a matter of a few weeks. Supposedly 95% of all the labels currently available there have signed on. Looks like current Google Music subscribers may be getting the YouTube subscription for no additional charge, which would be the proper move IMO.
It's simple: Spotify is available on Android, iTunes isn't. If you don't address 70% of the smartphone market, you can never remain the biggest in revenue
Uh huh. You do realize that all of those "XX% of Market Share" articles are almost never actually refering to the actual number of devices in use don't you? They are snapshots of the sales for a quarter.
Interestingly, when studies are done on actual number of devices in use iOS has more than a 30% share of the market. My guess is that iPhones are so much better quality that they have a tendency to be handed down or sold on the used market. So, when a new iPhone is bought the old iPhone is given or sold to another user, which doesn't show up on the quarterly sales. When an Android device is bought they usually can't give the things away (seriously go on Ebay and look at Android phones as a whole). Why would anyone want a used Android phone when dozens of new models are available for free?
My point is, don't confuse the quarterly sales numbers with the number of devices in actual usage. They aren't the same thing.
Ummm, then not at all like music streaming? I can see where some would rather search out specific songs rather than use any streamer. They like what they like. Perhaps why there's been regular rumors of a paid version YouTube media service in the works?
Yeah. I just chalked it up to generational differences. I would rather turn on a stream and let it go, but I grew up with radio. They will search for a song that they like then when it is over click on something suggested (if anything looks or sounds interesting) as the next song.
$1.29 songs are killing iTunes.
Labels now pay for being too greedy.
Given the amount of inflation across all sectors over the last ten years, songs going from $.99 to $1.29 is a small increase, especially since they became DRM free with that move.
Spotify is not the answer. I feel that the best solution would be a combined purchase/subscription model, whereby one can buy tracks to keep forever, as well as access all the content on iTunes.
Again, iTunes Radio already does all that. :rolleyes:
I don't think so.
iTunes Radio simply plays pre-ordained tracks; you have very limited control over what is played. By access to everything on iTunes, I mean the ability to stream every music track, film, tv programme, book and audiobook on demand.
Uh huh. You do realize that all of those "XX% of Market Share" articles are almost never actually refering to the actual number of devices in use don't you? They are snapshots of the sales for a quarter.
Interestingly, when studies are done on actual number of devices in use iOS has more than a 30% share of the market. My guess is that iPhones are so much better quality that they have a tendency to be handed down or sold on the used market. So, when a new iPhone is bought the old iPhone is given or sold to another user, which doesn't show up on the quarterly sales. When an Android device is bought they usually can't give the things away (seriously go on Ebay and look at Android phones as a whole). Why would anyone want a used Android phone when dozens of new models are available for free?
My point is, don't confuse the quarterly sales numbers with the number of devices in actual usage. They aren't the same thing.
You 're missing the point. Even if the actual iOS devices in use 30% or more, Android has more than 60% market share and Apple is not addressing that part. At home, myself, my wife and the kids have together 2 Macbooks, 1 Mac mini, 1 iPhone, 1 Pad and 1 IPod touch, but also 3 Android phones, 2 Android tablets, 1 windows Pc and 1 Linux laptop. I never buy something on iTunes because it cannot be played hasslefree on the half of my devices. I would definitely reconsider this purchasing behaviour if Apple would make an iTunes player available on Android and I don't think I am alone in this situation.
Most of that 70% pays for nothing. So they are not really a revenue source which is why with 70% Google is only just catching iOS in mobile revenue.
iTunes is a free app on iOS, it is for the content that you pay. If you buy digital music from a web store, there are no statistics for the device used to buy content. The web store is not interested in your client device, which could be anything (windows, Linux Mac, IPhone, Android, ...).
There are no statistics to support the statement that people with only iOS devices or Macs buy content.
Only at the iTunes store you need a iTunes supported platform to make a puchase. Which is definitely an issue if you have at home multiple platforms and some of them are not supported by Apple. In this case you are not able to play the content you paid for on the device you want.
Ummm, then not at all like music streaming? I can see where some would rather search out specific songs rather than use any streamer. They like what they like. Perhaps why there's been regular rumors of a paid version YouTube media service in the works?
EDIT: Apparently not just a rumor. Google has said they will have have a subscription YouTube music very soon, probably a matter of a few weeks. Supposedly 95% of all the labels currently available there have signed on. Looks like current Google Music subscribers may be getting the YouTube subscription for no additional charge, which would be the proper move IMO.
Don't forget the recent addition of Songza being integrated into Google Music All Access. For me, GMAA is by far the best streaming service you can get especially when YouTube is added like you said. I prefer to pay to stream music as I always have different moods for different reasons.
The one thing streaming music has done for me is discover more artists which in turn makes me look up when they have concerts to go and see.
This is also in large part simply a model shift away from Pandora/iTunes/Beats radio style streaming to on demand; any song, any time, anywhere, for as long as you like streaming that Spotify, Google Music, YouTube etc all offer. That's a ton more powerful, especially since those services also offer traditional style 'radio' streaming. I feel Apple is working on it, but facts like this article, underline it.
Oh goody, now we have another topic for analysts to spin the “Apple is DOOMED” meme with.
As for me, playlists (even curated ones) are not what I’m looking for. If I wake up in the morning and want to listen to a Mozart piano concerto to get things flowing then I want to be able to pick which one I listen to, not just accept what a streaming playlist offers.
I think everyone read this article wrong. It didn't say Spotify is making more money than iTines or that it's kicking it's butt in any way.
It just says Artists made a higher percentage of money from Spotify than iTunes which is great news. This means Spotify is actually paying the artist decent money which has been a big concern.
Don't kid yourself, Google's music service isn't Google Music or Google Play it is YouTube. And YoutTube is free and ad-supported. My daughters both listen to over 50% of their music on YouTube. It allows them to choose which song they want to listen to when they want to listen to it, and it doesn't cost them a thing.
will.i.am agrees.
I recommend you watch the whole video. This guy is smart and I've wanted him to work with Apple. Especially right now along Dre, Jimmy and Trent Reznor.
Skip to 6:49 for his view on Google streaming service:
Content owners should sue Giggle for all the crap going on at YouTube. You have teenagers uploading other artists songs and people uploading copyrighted content and monetizing in it. YouTube has even promoted videos that use other people's content. There was a recent video on the front page that hada Simpsons clip. The uploaded was a random guy with a cheap webcam who's other videos had like 150 views each.
iTunes is a free app on iOS, it is for the content that you pay. If you buy digital music from a web store, there are no statistics for the device used to buy content. The web store is not interested in your client device, which could be anything (windows, Linux Mac, IPhone, Android, ...).
There are no statistics to support the statement that people with only iOS devices or Macs buy content.
Only at the iTunes store you need a iTunes supported platform to make a puchase. Which is definitely an issue if you have at home multiple platforms and some of them are not supported by Apple. In this case you are not able to play the content you paid for on the device you want.
The support comes from the fact that the iTunes store has remained the 1# seller of music from any source for sometime now. Apple has been on the loosing end of market share for nearly all of this time. The same goes for apps. Even with 70% of the market the developers still prefer Apple because they actually make money. This is a recurring theme with developers. So yes there are statistics supporting my case. android users are not buying apps or music from iTunes but they consistently have a super disproportional share of sales against the total rest of the market. That includes the computer market where they have an even smaller share. Cheapers don't want to pay for stuff. They love all you can eat music sites because it is so close to free. The problem is none of these sites actually pay artist fairly so its like an outside company telling your boss that you should only be paid 10% of your current salary even though the company wouldn't exist without your output.
$1.29 songs are killing iTunes.
Labels now pay for being too greedy.
And this isn't the first time! Remember the days of $30 for an album on CD from HMV? That made Napster and Internet music stealing popular. Big business never really learns. My problem with streaming though is that I hate using my data when I'm not on wi-fi. There is something to be said for having my favorite songs on my iPhone with me all the time. But yeah, iTunes in its current iteration should not be charging over $1 for a song. The price was what made legal music purchasing so attractive and easy in the first place!
I think everyone read this article wrong. It didn't say Spotify is making more money than iTines or that it's kicking it's butt in any way.
It just says Artists made a higher percentage of money from Spotify than iTunes which is great news. This means Spotify is actually paying the artist decent money which has been a big concern.
Oh shut the hell up. It's greedy people like you who are killing the music industry.
will.i.am agrees.
I recommend you watch the whole video. This guy is smart and I've wanted him to work with Apple. Especially right now along Dre, Jimmy and Trent Reznor.
Skip to 6:49 for his view on Google streaming service:
Content owners should sue Giggle for all the crap going on at YouTube. You have teenagers uploading other artists songs and people uploading copyrighted content and monetizing in it. YouTube has even promoted videos that use other people's content. There was a recent video on the front page that hada Simpsons clip. The uploaded was a random guy with a cheap webcam who's other videos had like 150 views each.
Content owners have sued Google claiming they were complicit in YouTube copyright infringement. Viacom is one of the most aggressive with lawsuits
...and haven't had a win yet. Why? Youtube has been excellent about responding to any copyright holder claims, taking down infringing media quickly. If the major/minor labels and independent artists were so convinced as you think they are that YouTube doesn't respect ownership rights it wouldn't make sense for them to partner up on a streaming service with them would it?
As for will.i.am I agree with him. The artists are simply loss leaders. Streaming services like Beats, or Spotify or Google Music aren't going to make performers or songwriters rich. They should keep their day jobs.
The support comes from the fact that the iTunes store has remained the 1# seller of music from any source for sometime now. Apple has been on the loosing end of market share for nearly all of this time. The same goes for apps. Even with 70% of the market the developers still prefer Apple because they actually make money. This is a recurring theme with developers. So yes there are statistics supporting my case. android users are not buying apps or music from iTunes but they consistently have a super disproportional share of sales against the total rest of the market. That includes the computer market where they have an even smaller share. Cheapers don't want to pay for stuff. They love all you can eat music sites because it is so close to free. The problem is none of these sites actually pay artist fairly so its like an outside company telling your boss that you should only be paid 10% of your current salary even though the company wouldn't exist without your output.
The iTunes app is a FREE APP and iTunes revenue is CONTENT. Your reasoning about paid apps might be true, but completely irrelevant in the iTunes revenue discussion. If I buy music from Deustche Grammofon, my preferred music store, Deutsche Grammofon does not know if I buy/play the music with my iPhone, my Nexus 7 tablet, my windows PC, my Mac mini or my Linux laptop, and basically Deutsche Grammofon does not care, because Deutsche Grammofon is in the business of selling music and not of selling devices. As a consequence, the logic in extrapolating the statistics from paid apps to paid content is seriously flawed
If I buy music on the iTunes store, I can only buy/play that music on iTunes supported devices, which is a serious limitation for anyone like me who has a mix of Apple and non Apple devices. Apple has deliberately set up this strategy in order to sell more devices ('if you like our content, buy our devices'), but this strategy is starting to hurt the iTunes revenue, because iTunes is getting competition for music content providers who don't impose such a limitation.
Once iTunes is no longer king of the content (like in Europe today), the iTunes market share decline will only accelerate
And this isn't the first time! Remember the days of $30 for an album on CD from HMV? That made Napster and Internet music stealing popular. Big business never really learns. My problem with streaming though is that I hate using my data when I'm not on wi-fi. There is something to be said for having my favorite songs on my iPhone with me all the time. But yeah, iTunes in its current iteration should not be charging over $1 for a song. The price was what made legal music purchasing so attractive and easy in the first place!
Which is a plus for T-Mobile! It's one of the reasons I went with them besides the Wifi Calling which is a huge plus for me. It's the free Music streaming that doesn't count against your Data usage. Though there really isn't a Limit anyway. I mean you can pay for 3 Gig's and use it up and they just slow you down after that, there's no over usage fee. Not that I've used up anywhere near my limit. I'm always streaming.
The iTunes app is a FREE APP and iTunes revenue is CONTENT. Your reasoning about paid apps might be true, but completely irrelevant in the iTunes revenue discussion. If I buy music from Deustche Grammofon, my preferred music store, Deutsche Grammofon does not know if I buy/play the music with my iPhone, my Nexus 7 tablet, my windows PC, my Mac mini or my Linux laptop, and basically Deutsche Grammofon does not care, because Deutsche Grammofon is in the business of selling music and not of selling devices. As a consequence, the logic in extrapolating the statistics from paid apps to paid content is seriously flawed
If I buy music on the iTunes store, I can only buy/play that music on iTunes supported devices, which is a serious limitation for anyone like me who has a mix of Apple and non Apple devices. Apple has deliberately set up this strategy in order to sell more devices ('if you like our content, buy our devices'), but this strategy is starting to hurt the iTunes revenue, because iTunes is getting competition for music content providers who don't impose such a limitation.
Once iTunes is no longer king of the content (like in Europe today), the iTunes market share decline will only accelerate
That's not true. You can buy all the music you want from iTunes and have the Google Music Manger downloaded and installed. This will sync all the music from iTunes to Google Music to be played on practically every device in the world.
Comments
Spotify is not the answer. I feel that the best solution would be a combined purchase/subscription model, whereby one can buy tracks to keep forever, as well as access all the content on iTunes.
Given the amount of inflation across all sectors over the last ten years, songs going from $.99 to $1.29 is a small increase, especially since they became DRM free with that move.
Again, iTunes Radio already does all that. :rolleyes:
Yet oddly Google's music service isn't free and has no ad-supported version.
Don't kid yourself, Google's music service isn't Google Music or Google Play it is YouTube. And YoutTube is free and ad-supported. My daughters both listen to over 50% of their music on YouTube. It allows them to choose which song they want to listen to when they want to listen to it, and it doesn't cost them a thing.
Ummm, then not at all like music streaming? I can see where some would rather search out specific songs rather than use any streamer. They like what they like. Perhaps why there's been regular rumors of a paid version YouTube media service in the works?
EDIT: Apparently not just a rumor. Google has said they will have have a subscription YouTube music very soon, probably a matter of a few weeks. Supposedly 95% of all the labels currently available there have signed on. Looks like current Google Music subscribers may be getting the YouTube subscription for no additional charge, which would be the proper move IMO.
It's simple: Spotify is available on Android, iTunes isn't. If you don't address 70% of the smartphone market, you can never remain the biggest in revenue
Uh huh. You do realize that all of those "XX% of Market Share" articles are almost never actually refering to the actual number of devices in use don't you? They are snapshots of the sales for a quarter.
Interestingly, when studies are done on actual number of devices in use iOS has more than a 30% share of the market. My guess is that iPhones are so much better quality that they have a tendency to be handed down or sold on the used market. So, when a new iPhone is bought the old iPhone is given or sold to another user, which doesn't show up on the quarterly sales. When an Android device is bought they usually can't give the things away (seriously go on Ebay and look at Android phones as a whole). Why would anyone want a used Android phone when dozens of new models are available for free?
My point is, don't confuse the quarterly sales numbers with the number of devices in actual usage. They aren't the same thing.
Ummm, then not at all like music streaming? I can see where some would rather search out specific songs rather than use any streamer. They like what they like. Perhaps why there's been regular rumors of a paid version YouTube media service in the works?
Yeah. I just chalked it up to generational differences. I would rather turn on a stream and let it go, but I grew up with radio. They will search for a song that they like then when it is over click on something suggested (if anything looks or sounds interesting) as the next song.
I don't think so.
iTunes Radio simply plays pre-ordained tracks; you have very limited control over what is played. By access to everything on iTunes, I mean the ability to stream every music track, film, tv programme, book and audiobook on demand.
Uh huh. You do realize that all of those "XX% of Market Share" articles are almost never actually refering to the actual number of devices in use don't you? They are snapshots of the sales for a quarter.
Interestingly, when studies are done on actual number of devices in use iOS has more than a 30% share of the market. My guess is that iPhones are so much better quality that they have a tendency to be handed down or sold on the used market. So, when a new iPhone is bought the old iPhone is given or sold to another user, which doesn't show up on the quarterly sales. When an Android device is bought they usually can't give the things away (seriously go on Ebay and look at Android phones as a whole). Why would anyone want a used Android phone when dozens of new models are available for free?
My point is, don't confuse the quarterly sales numbers with the number of devices in actual usage. They aren't the same thing.
You 're missing the point. Even if the actual iOS devices in use 30% or more, Android has more than 60% market share and Apple is not addressing that part. At home, myself, my wife and the kids have together 2 Macbooks, 1 Mac mini, 1 iPhone, 1 Pad and 1 IPod touch, but also 3 Android phones, 2 Android tablets, 1 windows Pc and 1 Linux laptop. I never buy something on iTunes because it cannot be played hasslefree on the half of my devices. I would definitely reconsider this purchasing behaviour if Apple would make an iTunes player available on Android and I don't think I am alone in this situation.
$1.29 songs are killing iTunes.
Labels now pay for being too greedy.
Absolutely correct! I would much rather buy 2 songs for $1.98 than one song for $1.29
Most of that 70% pays for nothing. So they are not really a revenue source which is why with 70% Google is only just catching iOS in mobile revenue.
iTunes is a free app on iOS, it is for the content that you pay. If you buy digital music from a web store, there are no statistics for the device used to buy content. The web store is not interested in your client device, which could be anything (windows, Linux Mac, IPhone, Android, ...).
There are no statistics to support the statement that people with only iOS devices or Macs buy content.
Only at the iTunes store you need a iTunes supported platform to make a puchase. Which is definitely an issue if you have at home multiple platforms and some of them are not supported by Apple. In this case you are not able to play the content you paid for on the device you want.
Don't forget the recent addition of Songza being integrated into Google Music All Access. For me, GMAA is by far the best streaming service you can get especially when YouTube is added like you said. I prefer to pay to stream music as I always have different moods for different reasons.
The one thing streaming music has done for me is discover more artists which in turn makes me look up when they have concerts to go and see.
This is also in large part simply a model shift away from Pandora/iTunes/Beats radio style streaming to on demand; any song, any time, anywhere, for as long as you like streaming that Spotify, Google Music, YouTube etc all offer. That's a ton more powerful, especially since those services also offer traditional style 'radio' streaming. I feel Apple is working on it, but facts like this article, underline it.
Oh goody, now we have another topic for analysts to spin the “Apple is DOOMED” meme with.
As for me, playlists (even curated ones) are not what I’m looking for. If I wake up in the morning and want to listen to a Mozart piano concerto to get things flowing then I want to be able to pick which one I listen to, not just accept what a streaming playlist offers.
It just says Artists made a higher percentage of money from Spotify than iTunes which is great news. This means Spotify is actually paying the artist decent money which has been a big concern.
Oh shut the hell up. It's greedy people like you who are killing the music industry.
will.i.am agrees.
I recommend you watch the whole video. This guy is smart and I've wanted him to work with Apple. Especially right now along Dre, Jimmy and Trent Reznor.
Skip to 6:49 for his view on Google streaming service:
youtube.com/watch?v=0oVcXqB7pnE&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Content owners should sue Giggle for all the crap going on at YouTube. You have teenagers uploading other artists songs and people uploading copyrighted content and monetizing in it. YouTube has even promoted videos that use other people's content. There was a recent video on the front page that hada Simpsons clip. The uploaded was a random guy with a cheap webcam who's other videos had like 150 views each.
iTunes is a free app on iOS, it is for the content that you pay. If you buy digital music from a web store, there are no statistics for the device used to buy content. The web store is not interested in your client device, which could be anything (windows, Linux Mac, IPhone, Android, ...).
There are no statistics to support the statement that people with only iOS devices or Macs buy content.
Only at the iTunes store you need a iTunes supported platform to make a puchase. Which is definitely an issue if you have at home multiple platforms and some of them are not supported by Apple. In this case you are not able to play the content you paid for on the device you want.
The support comes from the fact that the iTunes store has remained the 1# seller of music from any source for sometime now. Apple has been on the loosing end of market share for nearly all of this time. The same goes for apps. Even with 70% of the market the developers still prefer Apple because they actually make money. This is a recurring theme with developers. So yes there are statistics supporting my case. android users are not buying apps or music from iTunes but they consistently have a super disproportional share of sales against the total rest of the market. That includes the computer market where they have an even smaller share. Cheapers don't want to pay for stuff. They love all you can eat music sites because it is so close to free. The problem is none of these sites actually pay artist fairly so its like an outside company telling your boss that you should only be paid 10% of your current salary even though the company wouldn't exist without your output.
And this isn't the first time! Remember the days of $30 for an album on CD from HMV? That made Napster and Internet music stealing popular. Big business never really learns. My problem with streaming though is that I hate using my data when I'm not on wi-fi. There is something to be said for having my favorite songs on my iPhone with me all the time. But yeah, iTunes in its current iteration should not be charging over $1 for a song. The price was what made legal music purchasing so attractive and easy in the first place!
Content owners have sued Google claiming they were complicit in YouTube copyright infringement. Viacom is one of the most aggressive with lawsuits
...and haven't had a win yet. Why? Youtube has been excellent about responding to any copyright holder claims, taking down infringing media quickly. If the major/minor labels and independent artists were so convinced as you think they are that YouTube doesn't respect ownership rights it wouldn't make sense for them to partner up on a streaming service with them would it?
As for will.i.am I agree with him. The artists are simply loss leaders. Streaming services like Beats, or Spotify or Google Music aren't going to make performers or songwriters rich. They should keep their day jobs.
The support comes from the fact that the iTunes store has remained the 1# seller of music from any source for sometime now. Apple has been on the loosing end of market share for nearly all of this time. The same goes for apps. Even with 70% of the market the developers still prefer Apple because they actually make money. This is a recurring theme with developers. So yes there are statistics supporting my case. android users are not buying apps or music from iTunes but they consistently have a super disproportional share of sales against the total rest of the market. That includes the computer market where they have an even smaller share. Cheapers don't want to pay for stuff. They love all you can eat music sites because it is so close to free. The problem is none of these sites actually pay artist fairly so its like an outside company telling your boss that you should only be paid 10% of your current salary even though the company wouldn't exist without your output.
The iTunes app is a FREE APP and iTunes revenue is CONTENT. Your reasoning about paid apps might be true, but completely irrelevant in the iTunes revenue discussion. If I buy music from Deustche Grammofon, my preferred music store, Deutsche Grammofon does not know if I buy/play the music with my iPhone, my Nexus 7 tablet, my windows PC, my Mac mini or my Linux laptop, and basically Deutsche Grammofon does not care, because Deutsche Grammofon is in the business of selling music and not of selling devices. As a consequence, the logic in extrapolating the statistics from paid apps to paid content is seriously flawed
If I buy music on the iTunes store, I can only buy/play that music on iTunes supported devices, which is a serious limitation for anyone like me who has a mix of Apple and non Apple devices. Apple has deliberately set up this strategy in order to sell more devices ('if you like our content, buy our devices'), but this strategy is starting to hurt the iTunes revenue, because iTunes is getting competition for music content providers who don't impose such a limitation.
Once iTunes is no longer king of the content (like in Europe today), the iTunes market share decline will only accelerate
Obviously Apple saw this coming.
Obviously Apple saw this coming.
And this isn't the first time! Remember the days of $30 for an album on CD from HMV? That made Napster and Internet music stealing popular. Big business never really learns. My problem with streaming though is that I hate using my data when I'm not on wi-fi. There is something to be said for having my favorite songs on my iPhone with me all the time. But yeah, iTunes in its current iteration should not be charging over $1 for a song. The price was what made legal music purchasing so attractive and easy in the first place!
Which is a plus for T-Mobile! It's one of the reasons I went with them besides the Wifi Calling which is a huge plus for me. It's the free Music streaming that doesn't count against your Data usage. Though there really isn't a Limit anyway. I mean you can pay for 3 Gig's and use it up and they just slow you down after that, there's no over usage fee. Not that I've used up anywhere near my limit. I'm always streaming.
http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/free-music-streaming.html
Included services:
It continues to grow.
The iTunes app is a FREE APP and iTunes revenue is CONTENT. Your reasoning about paid apps might be true, but completely irrelevant in the iTunes revenue discussion. If I buy music from Deustche Grammofon, my preferred music store, Deutsche Grammofon does not know if I buy/play the music with my iPhone, my Nexus 7 tablet, my windows PC, my Mac mini or my Linux laptop, and basically Deutsche Grammofon does not care, because Deutsche Grammofon is in the business of selling music and not of selling devices. As a consequence, the logic in extrapolating the statistics from paid apps to paid content is seriously flawed
If I buy music on the iTunes store, I can only buy/play that music on iTunes supported devices, which is a serious limitation for anyone like me who has a mix of Apple and non Apple devices. Apple has deliberately set up this strategy in order to sell more devices ('if you like our content, buy our devices'), but this strategy is starting to hurt the iTunes revenue, because iTunes is getting competition for music content providers who don't impose such a limitation.
Once iTunes is no longer king of the content (like in Europe today), the iTunes market share decline will only accelerate
That's not true. You can buy all the music you want from iTunes and have the Google Music Manger downloaded and installed. This will sync all the music from iTunes to Google Music to be played on practically every device in the world.