Apple Music streams songs on-demand, features 24/7 'Beats 1' station, on iOS & Android for $10/month

13468911

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 220
    mleidigmleidig Posts: 1member

    One important question that is currently unanswered ... will   ?Music work on other non-Android third party hardware.  i.e Sonos... which has done a very effective job of promoting Music services (including beatsmusic) with their very effective ecosystem. For many early adopters, like myself, the decision to embrace ?Music may be based on whether the Sonos ecosystem will natively support Apples new music service. Currently Sonos has an install base of 3 million homes and supports Spotify, Dezzer, Rhapsody, Tidal and Google Play among others and continues to gain ground.

  • Reply 102 of 220
    williamlondonwilliamlondon Posts: 1,300member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mubaili View Post



    Netflix, Apple Show will arrive on WWDC 2016.

     

    Exactly! Apple's WWDC, the only trade show where the keynote is your pink slip.

  • Reply 103 of 220
    smarkysmarky Posts: 75member

    Hmm unlikely to buy as it's unlikely to be supported by Sonos as I doubt Apple will allow them access to the system that they need. Very happy with Deezer here in the UK, much better than Spotify. But the US is behind on these things.

     

    I wonder if apple will do a deal with mobile carriers when selling the new iPhones that come out this year, so apple music is included in your monthly plan?

     

    This is already done with rival services deezer/spotify.. so would make sense, apple could be on a winner with this, another reason for people to buy an iphone if this offer is exclusive to those that buy a new iOS device.

  • Reply 104 of 220
    mike1mike1 Posts: 3,263member

    Maybe I'm old, but I just don't get this streaming music trend and all this emphasis on "discovery", especially paying for it. First, music is not my life nor is it a lifestyle. I'm also not really looking to discover new music. I have thousands of songs that I've collected over the years and maybe buy six new songs a year. If there was never another note of new music created, it wouldn't phase me a bit. Obviously, artists and music companies want you to "discover" and buy stuff. But why would anyone want to have new stuff thrown at them all the time? Are the songs worth listening to more than once.

  • Reply 105 of 220
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    falcon

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

     

    Serious?  Youtube is FULL OF ADS!  Nothing is better than listening to a great song and then being interuppted by an ad halfway through the song.


    Youtube has never in my experience interrupted a playing video with an ad.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    is this a serious question?

     

    If you are off of wifi/cellular where exactly would those songs be stored?  


    How about in the memory of the device you are using?

     

    Nokia Mix Radio does just this and it's great.  You give it the name of one or more artists of interest and it will come back to you with a custom mix.  You can choose to have offline mixes and the app will save the mix so you can play it anytime anywhere for a period of time, after which the mix expires and is removed, and this is all without paying a subscription.

  • Reply 106 of 220
    fallenjt wrote: »
    I thought when people use the term "junk", they mean "Android". No?

    I don't think it's any better or worse than iOS. I don't have anything that runs it, but it seems pretty nice. It is better than the grid of apps at least presentation wise. Honestly though I've only seen it phones not of my own. I went from a dumb phone to an iPhone 4. Now I have the 5s. If they make one that doesn't bend, I'll get the next one.

    What you might like however is the other day my niece said "they should invent a cord to attach these to the wall so you don't lose them." I enjoyed that. ????
  • Reply 107 of 220
    sog35 wrote: »
    You are old.  And no longer want to experience new things.

    Apple is not trying to market to you.

    On the other hand there are billions of people who are just discovering what they love in regards to music.  Those are the people who will buy AppleMusic.  The same people who have not purchased hundreds if not thousand of songs.

    I've purchased over two thousand songs from iTunes. Mostly because of the app sound hound. I maybe getting old, that's up for debate with me. I still have no interest in apple music. Don't generalize.

    I'm happy for people who like to stream music. Though from what I've noticed in my small circle, most who do stream music don't have the money to purchase music or pay a subscription.
  • Reply 108 of 220
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    While this might appeal to lots of people, the WWDC seems like a really odd place to parade famous and industry specific people across the stage regarding something that is mostly or entirely irrelevant to them (in their work), except of course for those in the audience it may actually end up putting out of business.

    Not sure Pandora and Spotify had developers there, but an interesting point. Any Developer on any platform runs the risk of being render obsolute by Apple, google or Microsoft. This is why it is important to have a great product so you get bought out verse being put out.
  • Reply 109 of 220
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    pdq2 wrote: »
    $10 a month was not terribly compelling when their competition had free versions.

    But $15 for up to 6 family members?

    Now, that's interesting....

    Yeah they have a free versions, but they also means they're sharing information about you so they can target market to you. Apple did a trade off, free but they would have to provide stats about who you are so advertisers can pay your bill. It is a decision people will have to decide subsidized music with your personall information or pay to ensure who you are stays with you not with someone looking to make money.
  • Reply 110 of 220
    milkmagemilkmage Posts: 152member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by chadmatic View Post

     

    Same $9.99 monthly fee as Tidal, except Tidal is giving it to you in higher resolution.


    ...and Tidal is already looking to reboot.

     

    http://venturebeat.com/2015/06/05/tidal-exec-defends-jay-zs-music-service-against-misinformation-and-misperceptions-says-sony-deal-is-close/

     

    So, as part of an ongoing effort to reboot Tidal’s image, Vania Schlogel, Tidal’s chief investment officer, appeared today at the Midem music and technology conference in Cannes to explain the company’s vision and defend it from the vitriol that’s been hurled at it since day one.

  • Reply 111 of 220
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    Beats addresses that. They still have the family plan and any remaining time when you switch over will be credited back by the carrier. You will also automatically have your playlists and library from beats.

    http://www.beatsmusic.com/faq
  • Reply 112 of 220
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    xserenityx wrote: »
    I was pleasantly surprised by this. I thought I was going to be ho-hum, because I'm pretty happy with Spotify... but some of the features look intriguing, and it wouldn't cost me more than it does now.

    I have to see if the library is as deep as Spotify's... I listen to a crapload of obscure stuff, and if I can't find it... :/

    I must be the only one actually jazzed about the global radio station.

    They claim the library is everything in iTunes which is an order of magnitude larger than spotify.
  • Reply 113 of 220
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    danreiss wrote: »
    Apparently no music for anyone with an IQ above 95.

    Weird how that is the stupidest most neon-sensical thing anyone has said in a thread about the keynote. Congratulations.
  • Reply 114 of 220
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    schlack wrote: »
    will my 1 yr beats music contract auto transfer?

    will i get credit for the 3 free months or will i pay for that via my beat's music contract.

    would have been nice to have some answers....

    Looking at the FAQ on beats, i believe you can move over, get three months free. You will get a credit for any remaining time on your beats account (either from your carrier or in your iTunes account) and then you can sign up for an individual or family plan at the end of the free three months.
  • Reply 115 of 220
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    sog35 wrote: »
    You are the classic case of a collector.

    Again AppleMusic is not for you.

    Its the difference between people who buy Blurays and collect them and those who stream movies on Netflix.

    The older demographic likes to collect.  Numbers don't lie.

    Actually, those who like stream realize most new music is not worth owning and listening to over and over again. or rediscovering at some future date. I have thousands of songs, most are older and a few newer one. But music today from most singers is like the old time company jiggles which get stuck in your head to the point you hate it and never want to hear it again. This is why streaming good, you can continually move on to the next jiggle that everyone seems to be interested in until you begin hating it and you never had to own it in the first place. I would imagine if bought most of the crappy music you would have buyers remorse most of the time.

    As time goes on people tastes in things get refined, so younger people will listen to anything and everything but eventually settle in on things that have some holding power.

    My son and daughter are always listening to new things but they both have my entire collection on their phones and computers and listen more to my older stuff when they get tire of the newer stuff.

    But think of it this way, it like renting a house verse owning it. It all you listing to is small set of music choices then renting would be bad since you would have bought i over and over again. if you own it then it bought and done.

    But you stat is not correct, older people understand the value of owning something verse never owning and always paying. Younger people are not willing to pay for music since they see not value in. The never grew up holding and album and it artwork. Today it just some file they sits on your phone, you can not even touch it or feel it so it lose most of it value. Books are heading the same way, people kept books because it showed what they read and books had value , in the future when they are solely electronic they will have no value.
  • Reply 116 of 220
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    You are old.  And no longer want to experience new things.

     

    Apple is not trying to market to you.

     

    On the other hand there are billions of people who are just discovering what they love in regards to music.  Those are the people who will buy AppleMusic.  The same people who have not purchased hundreds if not thousand of songs.




    Please respect Appleinsider's comment guidelines: You are being personal and not contributing with a fact based argument.



    In response to your argument. I am using Soundcloud and see no reason why I should switch to Apple music:


    1. Through Soundcloud I discover like minded people with a similar taste.

    2. With Soundcloud you can discover what portions of the song resonates to people in a glance.

    3. Soundcloud has expanded my musical horizon in a considerable way. At no cost.

     

    Apple music has still a long way to go. It is an improvement for sure, but it isn't social. Apple should take some clues from Soundcloud. Or just buy them?

  • Reply 117 of 220
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 15,267moderator
    mike1 wrote: »
    Maybe I'm old, but I just don't get this streaming music trend and all this emphasis on "discovery", especially paying for it.

    http://www.avclub.com/article/new-study-shows-people-stop-listening-new-music-33-218752

    Just like with fashion, people reach an age where they aren't trying to figure themselves out nor trying to impress other people. You know you've reached the age with music when you stop recognising the names of popular musicians.

    Discovery is important for everyone though because at some point everyone has to discover the music that exists in their collection and there will be music out there that can expand that collection they simply didn't come across. I don't change my music collection much at all but I don't like finding great songs by accident that came out years ago knowing I missed listening to them. I tried Spotify in the past but it only gave me songs I looked for. I had no way of easily telling it what I listen to already.

    Apple's My Songs portion will read playlists, genres and preferences to recommend new music and will hopefully be effortless. I don't like wasting time manually searching out new music.

    It was funny when Jimmy Iovine announced the 3 parts and started the first with 'revolutionary music service'. Someone in the audience laughed because they must have thought he was doing it like Steve's iPhone launch that had 3 parts but Iovine didn't get what they were laughing at.

    $10/month is quite a lot to pay if people aren't all that interested in music discovery. I'd personally rather have a topup where I just put a fixed amount of credit into a balance and it deducts a certain amount per listen (e.g 0.1-1c per track) and to own a track, I'd have to buy it from the store and it can take this from the balance too. That way I only get charged when I feel like discovering new music, which might be over a holiday period or weekend.
  • Reply 118 of 220
    apple1991apple1991 Posts: 35member

    British licence fee payers created BBC Radio 1, Apple took that idea and created Beats 1

  • Reply 119 of 220
    zoetmbzoetmb Posts: 2,652member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    ok.  Lets say they get 25 million this year.  50 million next year.

     

    That is already close to $10 billion in revenue in less than 2 years.

     

    Beats was only $3 billion.  With a 10% profit margin they will recoup the cost of the acquisition in less than 4 years.  Then add in Beats hardware sales and its probably only 3 years.  Any business that pays for itself in less than 10 years is an AMAZING ROI. Especially if it continues to grow Revenue/profits which I expect AppleMusic to do.




    You're dreaming.   It's never going to be that much revenue.

     

    In the U.S. in 2014, Sound Exchange revenue to the record industry was $773.4 million, paid streaming subscriptions earned $799.1 million and On-demand ad supported streaming earned $294.8 million.   That's $1.867 billion.   Of course, that's the money that's paid to the record industry, not necessarily the top-line revenue of the services. 

     

    As long as there are free ad-supported streaming sites, there are going to be a lot of people who will refuse to pay the $10 a month.   Now if the industry starts refusing to let the ad-supported free sites have their music (as Taylor Swift has done) or even if they refuse to let those sites have new music, Apple would have a much stronger chance of being enormously successful sooner. 

     

    The entire international record industry, including both physical and digital media was under $15 billion in 2014.  You think Apple alone is going to beat revenues of the entire record industry within two years?   Not happening.   

     

    People don't mind paying a few bucks for an app and some people (although a declining number) don't mind paying 99 cents to $1.29 for a track, but people really hate adding yet one more bill for yet one more subscription even if it saves them money in the long run. 

  • Reply 120 of 220
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,397member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by techguy911 View Post

     

    The whole time I was listening to them talking about this being the "one" music ecosystem to take over all others, I knew Apple had to make an Android app, there is really no other choice if they want it to be universally used.  I believe this is the first time Apple has developed a mobile app for another platform.


     

    I believes you're right... ...but if it works out I'm curious to see if Maps may join it... ...not that Maps is monetized by more users (or is it??) but would benefit from the scale of user feedback....  ...and from sheer mind share and the halo effect of being "a standard"

     

    ....NTM having a good experience on the early versions of iTunes for Windows - seeing how things work the Apple way - is what got me to buy my first Mac and iPod....  ...so a very sensible "back to the future" move in my book....



    ....and PS, things like FaceTime and iMessages NOT offering universal clients is a turn-off... ....with a flavor of the days you couldn't text between phone companies or communicate outside of AOL.... ...most of my peeps aren't iOS users, aren't going to become iOS users, and I certainly can't keep track of which are and aren't... ...nor do I intend to find out on a one by one attempt basis....



    ...so hoping for some re-eval on those fronts too as I think opening them up would ultimately redound to Apple's benefit...

Sign In or Register to comment.