Apple to announce $10-per-month on-demand music service, will retain Beats Music for now - report

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 42
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

     



    Trust me, you're not the only one.




    You're right, there are plenty of idiots that can't understand simple economics.

     

    The headphone business justified the entire purchase by itself...and they got the entire Beats service plus staff for basically nothing.

  • Reply 22 of 42
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    For 120 pop a year, you can buy 110 songs that you will keep, or 50 albums at 6,00 (patience helps), or 12 months of radio.

    Everyone may choose their option (in the U.S.), but I know mine and Beats has no connection to it!
  • Reply 23 of 42
    plovellplovell Posts: 801member
    So we're supposed to pay $10/month AND huge data fees for streaming. Along with intermittent connectivity. Does anyone else think that this is a good idea?

    Gee, Apple, I do not think so. That is certainly not part of MY plan.
  • Reply 24 of 42
    jackansijackansi Posts: 116member

    I find it odd to announce something like this at a developer conference...

  • Reply 25 of 42
    boeyc15boeyc15 Posts: 986member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by plovell View Post



    So we're supposed to pay $10/month AND huge data fees for streaming. Along with intermittent connectivity. Does anyone else think that this is a good idea?



    Gee, Apple, I do not think so. That is certainly not part of MY plan.

     

     If I was a music discovery aficionado, it might make sense. Otherwise, for me - I'm 'fee planned' up! Apple radio or other internet radio stations are just fine.

  • Reply 26 of 42
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,143member
    So a no go for me. There's nothing new or different. I pay less for Google Play Music for the same service. iTunes Radio has never been a option for me as I want to play what I want when I want.
  • Reply 27 of 42
    bill304bill304 Posts: 2member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lightknight View Post



    For 120 pop a year, you can buy 110 songs that you will keep, or 50 albums at 6,00 (patience helps), or 12 months of radio.



    Everyone may choose their option (in the U.S.), but I know mine and Beats has no connection to it!



    you missed the fact that this subscription based streaming service lets user to stream every music that apple has permission to stream even though they didn't buy it  

     

    So basically it is 110 songs that you can listen even if you are offline VS listening music over ten thousands of songs only if you are online or offline (since subsription based streaming has offline playlist feature, you can just download music without extra cost)

  • Reply 28 of 42
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Apple has to offer something but as I said in another thread I don't see streaming music as a big deal anymore. I hope it's not considered one of the big highlights of WWDC because none of the rumors point to anything blow away. The rumors on Apple's alleged Google Now competitor sound way more interesting.
  • Reply 29 of 42
    stevenozstevenoz Posts: 232member
    I would have thought that the $3 billion for Beats et al would have bought quicker music content acquisitions. Wasn't it all for Dre and Iovine's music biz connections and arm twisting?
  • Reply 30 of 42
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by bill304 View Post

     



    you missed the fact that this subscription based streaming service lets user to stream every music that apple has permission to stream even though they didn't buy it  

     

    So basically it is 110 songs that you can listen even if you are offline VS listening music over ten thousands of songs only if you are online or offline (since subsription based streaming has offline playlist feature, you can just download music without extra cost)


    I might have not been clear. I pointed out that for that money, Apple offers three options (one being the one you just highlighted), which depend  on your tastes. I prefer to buy a dozen songs, or 2-3 albums a month, listen the **** out of them (as in, I literally put the albums on repeat for days), and then end the month running random on some of my playlists depending on the mood. Others may prefer other options.

     

    It's a big world, with many tastes. I was celebrating more options ^^

  • Reply 31 of 42
    carthusiacarthusia Posts: 561member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mike1 View Post

     

    Not sure why I would pay $10/mo. for the option to specify a specific song or album. Chances are I'd already have bought it and would just play my copy. The free iTunes Radio and my handful of customized stations works just fine. However, they really need to make iTunes Radio work through a browser as well as iTunes. Right now, I can't use it on my work computer (no iTunes installed), so I use Pandora instead.




    I'm with you on this one. I tried Spotify, but could not stomach $10 a month for music. I love iTunes Radio and I've tuned my 12 or so stations really well. I have iTunes Match-no commercials and use my iPhone for iTunes Radio, my own music, and podcasts at work. I pair my iPhone with a small Bluetooth speaker (Sony SRS BTV 5). Works great for me. Desktop computer speakers tend to suck. This one's good enough, but cheap enough to be replaceable. I bought a few of them for home and office.

  • Reply 32 of 42
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,161member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by plovell View Post



    So we're supposed to pay $10/month AND huge data fees for streaming. Along with intermittent connectivity. Does anyone else think that this is a good idea?



    Gee, Apple, I do not think so. That is certainly not part of MY plan.

    I'm sure there will be offline listening capabilities just like the current Beats music app and Spotify. 

  • Reply 33 of 42
    carthusiacarthusia Posts: 561member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by schlack View Post



    at the same price point, it would need to have some awesome differentiators to compete with spotify...



    Can Spotify properly clear your offline playlist cache on iPhone? It couldn't when I used it a couple years ago and that was the main reason I gave it up. I won't pay $10 per month without being able to easily send playlists to offline mode and easily move those playlists from the cache. The playlists continued to take up space on my then 16GB iPhone 4S-no bueno. The only remedy was to uninstall and reinstall the app to clear the cache. If Beats/Apple Music can maintain a clean cache, I'd reconsider, otherwise, I wouldn't feel I truly had access to the "unlimited" music.

  • Reply 34 of 42
    carthusiacarthusia Posts: 561member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by stevenoz View Post



    I would have thought that the $3 billion for Beats et al would have bought quicker music content acquisitions. Wasn't it all for Dre and Iovine's music biz connections and arm twisting?



    And about a billion dollars a year in headphone revenue. Apple likely is closing in on recouping that $3 billion from Beats headphones, earphones, and speakers.

  • Reply 35 of 42
    carthusiacarthusia Posts: 561member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

     

    Are they sure they aren't going to use the Beats brand name right away? What would be the purpose of acquiring them if you're not going to capitalize on the brand recognition (plus the likes of Iovine, Dre and Reznor, who I understand will play a big part in their new service)?

     

    I think it would make more sense to bring over the users from iTunes Radio into Beats and consolidate all their music offerings under Beats.




    I've wondered about this...Beats has a bit too much of a Bass-y connotation. I'm not sure that classical music lovers, for instance, will be too comfortable with "Beats".

  • Reply 36 of 42
    jltnoljltnol Posts: 5member
    NO MORE SUBSCRIPTIONS!
  • Reply 37 of 42
    robin huberrobin huber Posts: 3,269member
    pmz wrote: »

    The headphone business justified the entire purchase by itself
    Really? I'm not an expert on headphones, but those who are rate Beats as middlin' at best. Like Beats, Apple attracts the style-conscious, but unlike Beats Apple also attracts those for whom only the best is good enough. Apple won't even enter a space unless they can offer the best quality. So now, what, they are just buying the name? A name that beyond the coolness factor is no competition for the high end headphone makers out there? Not a bargain on the hardware front. Wetware and software? That's another matter. But when are they going to make use of it?
  • Reply 38 of 42
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Robin Huber View Post

     
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by pmz View Post





    The headphone business justified the entire purchase by itself


    Really? I'm not an expert on headphones, but those who are rate Beats as middlin' at best. Like Beats, Apple attracts the style-conscious, but unlike Beats Apple also attracts those for whom only the best is good enough. Apple won't even enter a space unless they can offer the best quality. So now, what, they are just buying the name? A name that beyond the coolness factor is no competition for the high end headphone makers out there? Not a bargain on the hardware front. Wetware and software? That's another matter. But when are they going to make use of it?

      It was more the other way around.  Iovine has proven time and time again he can take a company and increase its value through the roof in just a few years.  He's the most Jobs-like corporate person in the US in that his eyes are on things that are years away from being formed enough for most others to even know what they are, and he knows what people want.   Just as Apple created the mobile device mp3 driven market that they still dominate, even though they didn't create any part of the technology, Iovine created the mass appeal status symbol headphone marketplace, which Beats ruled, that didn't exist before.

     

      As far as the headphones themselves, their value was in Apple getting a direct line to their huge user base, not so much in manufacturing new headphones to sell them.  Otherwise they would have bought it and had it continue as it had, just letting it be under their umbrella.  Apple has other things it wants to sell them, and they like the idea that they pay more for shiny externals and perceived superiority, same as us Apple users.  But it's perfect for them that the Beats customer's profile isn't exactly the same as the Apple user's.  They're not banking on selling them millions of MacBook Airs, they're looking at selling them things in three years that we don't even know about now.  I don't get a sense at all that the headphone will play more than a cursory role in the big picture.

  • Reply 39 of 42
    xixoxixo Posts: 422member

    why? beats me...

  • Reply 40 of 42
    sleakajsleakaj Posts: 32member

    Based on that, it'll likely be $13 Australian.

     

    No thanks Apple. I won't pay that.

Sign In or Register to comment.