Has anyone an idea or thought why the music industry did not develop like the movie industry? Offering music first as purchase only, later on paid subscription services and later still on free/ad supported subscriptions? Wouldn't that make sense?
This was my exact thought too. While it might be tough to implement, I think Apple could have come out with a game changer with something like this.
I envisioned the $9.99 for streaming a back catalogue, but new artists could decide to make their new album be available for purchase at a discounted rate instead of streaming it for free. The price would still be cheaper than what a normal album costs, maybe $5. If the user doesn't want to pay $5 for the album, then they could wait for the album to be available in the future, maybe 3 or 4 months later.
I also think Apple could have added value to artists by making Apple Music Connect a paid subscription fee per artist. I currently have one of my favorite artists who has an iTunes app and I pay $2/month and he provides all sorts of unique content. He steams video and connects with fans, uploads unreleased music and content for me to listen too, posts cool pictures, and stuff like that.
While I will definitely be a subscriber to Apple Music, I definitely think Apple could have thought outside the box a bit and created some really cool ways for artists to generate revenue beyond just getting a slice of downloads. Instead they played catch up with Spotify, and practically offer the same product for a different price.
Are you trying to be intentionally obtuse? Or are your reading comprehension skills that bad?
I just don't think these are special features
- 100 countries at launch (68 for Spotify, 58 Google and 3 Pandora). - not a feature that makes Apple Music better than Spotify.
- Family pricing much cheaper than Spotify. - cheaper than free?
- More music. Not just in songs, but for artists. Can't listen to Taylor Swift on Spotify. And who knows what artists in the future.Nobody has the pull Apple does with artists. - interesting that you make this assertion commenting an article about artists NOT signing up to Apple Music...
- 24HR live radio stations - excellent. I just can't find any decent radio station on TuneIn Radio
I think Apple Music will be excellent, but being in 100 countries or having ads on TV does not make it a better service. It will just makes it more successful! I will sign up to Aaple Music on day one, but only because I assume they will allow virtually unlimited downloads that integrate seamlessly into my iTunes library, for $ 10 a month. That is a feature.
- 100 countries at launch (68 for Spotify, 58 Google and 3 Pandora). - not a feature that makes Apple Music better than Spotify.
- Family pricing much cheaper than Spotify. - cheaper than free?
- More music. Not just in songs, but for artists. Can't listen to Taylor Swift on Spotify. And who knows what artists in the future.Nobody has the pull Apple does with artists. - interesting that you make this assertion commenting an article about artists NOT signing up to Apple Music...
- 24HR live radio stations - excellent. I just can't find any decent radio station on TuneIn Radio
I think Apple Music will be excellent, but being in 100 countries or having ads on TV does not make it a better service. It will just makes it more successful! I will sign up to Aaple Music on day one, but only because I assume they will allow virtually unlimited downloads that integrate seamlessly into my iTunes library, for $ 10 a month. That is a feature.
- 100 countries doesn't make Apple Music better? Tell that to people in those 32+ countries (like China) that don't get Spotify and see if they agree with you.
- Did you actually say Spotify is free? Sorry, it's not. Right now each additional member is 50% off the $9.99 premium price. That means 2 people cost the same on Spotify as up to 6 on Apple Music. Apple saves you $5 for members 3 to 6. That's potentially $5-$20 in savings per month over Spotify.
- If these UK labels are going to avoid Apple Music over the 90 day free trial then they'll also avoid Spotify. Still doesn't change the fact that Apple is far less likely to lose artists (or not have them) compared to everyone else.
- Family pricing much cheaper than Spotify. - cheaper than free?
Free Spotify is for people who's not interested in paying for music, poor quality and only shuffle, something Apple want to remedy with Apple Music. Getting music value back is one of the point in the keynote. I understand that it will be hard for some indie labels on the free trial period but they did it to themselves when they allow Spotify to stream their songs for free.
I hold no brief for the musicians or the labels mentioned here (not their big fan), but I do find it a tad bothersome that Apple is handing out 'free' stuff on someone else's back. It's analogous to a powerful retailer (I realize there may be none) handing out Apple products for free for three months to build their electronics franchise. Apple would be quite within its rights to demand that the retailer swallow the cost.
How is this different?
If Apple wants to hand out stuff for free to build awareness or share, great, but it should most certainly pay those whose products, services, or IP it's giving away.
Do the math. Apple is actually paying more in the long run(compared to no free trial and only 70% royalty).
Try doing the math, it takes 12 years (at 71.5%) to recover the lost income from the 3 month trial period for each subscriber that switches from a rival service. This isn't about the additional fees as it won't help.
Apple and having a 3 month trial will help for new (don't currently subscribe to a music service) but that doesn't help small labels who could suffer from a major loss of income for three months. The problem will be that they will lose income from every portion person who switched service and if people who were buying music decides to wait while give the three month trial a chance.
Comments
Has anyone an idea or thought why the music industry did not develop like the movie industry? Offering music first as purchase only, later on paid subscription services and later still on free/ad supported subscriptions? Wouldn't that make sense?
This was my exact thought too. While it might be tough to implement, I think Apple could have come out with a game changer with something like this.
I envisioned the $9.99 for streaming a back catalogue, but new artists could decide to make their new album be available for purchase at a discounted rate instead of streaming it for free. The price would still be cheaper than what a normal album costs, maybe $5. If the user doesn't want to pay $5 for the album, then they could wait for the album to be available in the future, maybe 3 or 4 months later.
I also think Apple could have added value to artists by making Apple Music Connect a paid subscription fee per artist. I currently have one of my favorite artists who has an iTunes app and I pay $2/month and he provides all sorts of unique content. He steams video and connects with fans, uploads unreleased music and content for me to listen too, posts cool pictures, and stuff like that.
While I will definitely be a subscriber to Apple Music, I definitely think Apple could have thought outside the box a bit and created some really cool ways for artists to generate revenue beyond just getting a slice of downloads. Instead they played catch up with Spotify, and practically offer the same product for a different price.
Amelio can be found in the cardboard box under the overpass at Exit 666 near Irvington CA.
in B4 Amelio apologists...
I just don't think these are special features
- 100 countries at launch (68 for Spotify, 58 Google and 3 Pandora). - not a feature that makes Apple Music better than Spotify.
- Family pricing much cheaper than Spotify. - cheaper than free?
- More music. Not just in songs, but for artists. Can't listen to Taylor Swift on Spotify. And who knows what artists in the future.Nobody has the pull Apple does with artists. - interesting that you make this assertion commenting an article about artists NOT signing up to Apple Music...
- 24HR live radio stations - excellent. I just can't find any decent radio station on TuneIn Radio
I think Apple Music will be excellent, but being in 100 countries or having ads on TV does not make it a better service. It will just makes it more successful! I will sign up to Aaple Music on day one, but only because I assume they will allow virtually unlimited downloads that integrate seamlessly into my iTunes library, for $ 10 a month. That is a feature.
- 100 countries doesn't make Apple Music better? Tell that to people in those 32+ countries (like China) that don't get Spotify and see if they agree with you.
- Did you actually say Spotify is free? Sorry, it's not. Right now each additional member is 50% off the $9.99 premium price. That means 2 people cost the same on Spotify as up to 6 on Apple Music. Apple saves you $5 for members 3 to 6. That's potentially $5-$20 in savings per month over Spotify.
- If these UK labels are going to avoid Apple Music over the 90 day free trial then they'll also avoid Spotify. Still doesn't change the fact that Apple is far less likely to lose artists (or not have them) compared to everyone else.
- If these UK labels are going to avoid Apple Music over the 90 day free trial then they'll also avoid Spotify.
XL's catalogue is already on Spotify.
In fact, XL Recordings has it's own custom playlists on Spotify.
Don't worry about it. You'll still be able to listen to Beyoncé and Britney.
I guess the last statement indicates sarcasm, but I still want to add
- NO to dividends
- YES to more share buybacks
- YES to buy Wolfram Alpha
- YES to buy Tesla and put Musk in charge
I'm not sure why this isn't happening already. It's such a good idea and fit Apple perfectly.
I know tastes vary, and this is better stuff than Britney and Justin, but 'discerning'? :rolleyes:
- Family pricing much cheaper than Spotify. - cheaper than free?
Free Spotify is for people who's not interested in paying for music, poor quality and only shuffle, something Apple want to remedy with Apple Music. Getting music value back is one of the point in the keynote. I understand that it will be hard for some indie labels on the free trial period but they did it to themselves when they allow Spotify to stream their songs for free.
That would be the Stones?
How is this different?
If Apple wants to hand out stuff for free to build awareness or share, great, but it should most certainly pay those whose products, services, or IP it's giving away.
Would be a prime example.
Try doing the math, it takes 12 years (at 71.5%) to recover the lost income from the 3 month trial period for each subscriber that switches from a rival service. This isn't about the additional fees as it won't help.
Apple and having a 3 month trial will help for new (don't currently subscribe to a music service) but that doesn't help small labels who could suffer from a major loss of income for three months. The problem will be that they will lose income from every portion person who switched service and if people who were buying music decides to wait while give the three month trial a chance.
J
I'm not sure why this isn't happening already. It's such a good idea and fit Apple perfectly.
Because they can do it themselves without rushing.