The point is, music files should not have to be 'Googled' for at all, right? It was purchased and installed at great expense over a long period of time and one button press in Music - gone!
It's a tad weird that they would giving out specifics for a rather low-cash flow business like Apple Music, when they're being so coy about Watch sales.
I'm not saying the latter is necessarily bad, but rather that, in context, the former is odd.
I have my bets on which number the market would rather hear about.
The new Music App needs help. As brilliant as he has been for Apple, I don't know if Jony Ive is the best person to drive UI. Things have become so sparse, flat, hidden, and minimized that it sometimes becomes an egg hunt game to find things. Apple is trying to teach everyone a new UI vocabulary, and I understand the need to a certain extent given the limited real estate of portable devices. But it took a friend and I almost 20 minutes to find how to see all the titles from an album when playing a song from a mixed or random playlist (you have to call up the song detail screen, then touch the eclipses, then touch the song header bar with the mini album art...)
Perhaps with force touch, a more unified method of UI will evolve, so a press calls up a contextual menu and users are not guessing between ellipses, down arrows, hieroglyphics, and hidden options when touching certain screen elements.
Things like "Make Available Offline" and "Add to My Music" can be confusing, and duplicate functions with unnamed icons. Somehow, For You, New, and Radio could have been unified as they are all facets of streaming.
Which brings me to this: The biggest thing I see is most people really don't want to "stream" persay...who wants to pay for additional cellular data to listen to music, especially as a family, and even if you did, continuous reliable cellular and wifi is still not there. I look at this as renting music, and when I rent it in one spot, it should automatically (at least optionally) populate to all my devices on that account so it's available anywhere without wondering if I manually downloaded on every device.
As it is, you have to remember to go to each device to download playlists or songs manually, which of course is impossible to keep track of, and the Music interface doesn't even give you an option to see what songs are online only and not downloaded. I found that I've stopped using For You and New because of this. I shouldn't have to rediscover and rexplore on every device.
They simply should add a slider option in Music settings to auto download My Music choices just like to can auto download purchases made on other devices.
The iTunes team is responsible for Apple Music not Jony Ive.
This is why Apple should stop releasing sales figures. No matter what they are they're considered underwhelming. ?WATCH did over $1B in revenue last quarter and everyone is calling that a flop. ?MUSIC could potentially also be another billion $ business and that's considered underwhelming. Sheeh.
This is why Apple should stop releasing sales figures. No matter what they are they're considered underwhelming. ?WATCH did over $1B in revenue last quarter and everyone is calling that a flop. ?MUSIC could potentially also be another billion $ business and that's considered underwhelming. Sheeh.
It just means that the market has very big expectations in Apple. If their expectations were low, and released figures surprised them positively, readers of this website would complain about that, too ("Apple has shown again and again that they DISRUPT markets and absolutely KILL it! Why do these analysts on Wall Street INSIST on downplaying the incredible OPPORTUNITY Apple is addressing and have such low expectations even before they HAVE SEEN THE PRODUCT! You would think that by now, they would have realised that Apple products ALWAYS MASSIVELY OUTSELL the ridiculously low expectation of these analysts!").
Still AppleMusic is the best streaming service on iOS and its only going to get better each year.
11 million when it's free is not big at all.
This is strictly an opinion of yours that Apple Music is the best. It's not fact. You think that Apple Music is the best and that's great. Others have tried it, didn’t like it and went back to what they liked better.
According to a poster on this site, you and I are on some mind altering drugs for believing that achieving a 1.8% take-up rate of a new free service is not a lot. But I agree with you: I know no company in the world that would consider that a success, not for a major new, expensive, heavily advertised functionality like Music, that is in your face all the time.
Spotify/Pandora/ect all have free tiers or trial periods. Do you expect those services to have 30-50% conversion rates? What planet are YOU living on! Even more so since AppleMusic is NOT a free service.
11 million in a few weeks is AMAZING. Thats a revenue stream of $1.3 billion created in a few weeks that will keep growing.
Do you seriously think that all 11 million people will keep it? You're dreaming. So it's NOT $1.3B right now. Most won't keep it and pay for it.
But that was one of the selling points of AppleMusic.
To have ONE APP to play all your music.
Again there are bugs in any version 1 product, Apple will fix it.
But you always state that when another company has software bugs on the first go around its crap and not polished. You're just giving Apple a pass. Others are not.
I consider the messy and un-Apple-like rollout of Apple Music a "fireable" offense and heads should roll. I don't know if that means Iovine, Cue or Trent Reznor, but they don't get a second chance to make a good first impression. I won't be using the free radio and I won't subscribe.
Also, Iovine still acts as if he were some kind of an outsider observing events as they happen. His choice of words indicates he is not in charge of anything and I really wonder why he's there.
not thrilled with the service. definitely not as good as my beats music service or spotify which i had before beats.
nonetheless, i'd prefer to give my money to apple if they would improve the service...both in terms of the user experience...and in terms of the features/capabilities.
$10/month seems high though. with beats, i was able to do a year for $100 all at once. wish apple would offer the same...
Well its either iOS, blackberry, Android, or Windows Mobile.
I'll pick iOS every day of the week.
A few hundred million agree with you. Still doesn't make Android or any other OS an excuse for any shortcomings or needed improvements. Dismissing issues by dragging another competing platform/company into it saying they're no better in your opinion is pretty silly IMO and speaks more to a lack of excuses for whatever it is.
The "download and play anywhere" model is supported if you have Apple Music and iTunes Match. After some initial bumps this combo seems to be working quite well. I will absolutely be sticking with Apple Music after the trial period expires. For me it's a no brainer because it saves me at least $50 a month in album purchases. Yeah I know it's really a rental model but once you have a core collection of albums you want to "own" anything beyond that just becomes an ever changing collection of music you are sampling and discovering. If you discover something you absolutely want to own you can still buy it. But to be able to sample and discover a world of music for only $15 a month including iTunes Match is a phenomenal value for anyone who loves music and discovering new to them music. I'd say it's life changing, but since it's still in the realm of discretionary spending and focus I'll just say that it's a wonderful distraction. I'm hooked.
Kind of a meaningless stat. Who wouldn't try out a free service? Let's see what the number of paid members is in October,
I still haven't signed up for the free trial. I will at some point after the issues are fixed, but even after that, I'm not going to pay for it. It costs to much, at least for me. I just don't tune into a lot of music these days. So the price is not worth it. If their was a $5 a month option but have limited hours, I'd be fine with that. Right now I'm just doing Amazon Prime Music. The Selection of music is smaller, but again, I don't turn into a lot of music so it's fine and already part of Amazon prime I'm paying for anyway. Though for how much longer?!?! I don't buy as much from Amazon these days which is why I got it in the first place a number of years ago.
11 million Non-Paid Members currently is meaningless. Until the trial is up and they actually now have to PAY for the service is what really matters. Are those people going to be hooked to the service after 3 months? What happens after 3 months and it drops down to say 5 million?
Spotify/Pandora/ect all have free tiers or trial periods. Do you expect those services to have 30-50% conversion rates? What planet are YOU living on! Even more so since AppleMusic is NOT a free service.
11 million in a few weeks is AMAZING. Thats a revenue stream of $1.3 billion created in a few weeks that will keep growing.
When you inquire about 30-50% "conversion rates" with respect to Spotify/Pandora/etc, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the conversion from free tier to paid? Then I agree with you, but that is not what the previous poster is talking about. The previous poster expected a greater percentage of iOS users to simply sign up for the free trial, and I tend to agree with him: 1% is terribly low. I don't know what fraction of those will turn into paid subscribers.
If the industry is able to get 500,000,000 subscribers at $5 a month that would be $30 billion in annual revenue. The entire US revenue for music (digital, CD's, concerts, rights) was only $14 billion. Its obvious that there is massive growth opportunities.
I think that 500 million streaming music subscribers worldwide might be feasible, but most likely not if limited to the US. So we should probably be comparing the computed $30 billion revenue figure to the worldwide revenue for music, whatever number that is above and beyond the $14B US. Oh... but on the good side of the equation is this: you don't have to include concert revenue in the comparison, because live performances will still remain attractive. Perhaps even more so, because people using streaming services will discover new artists, become fans, and decide to go to their concerts the next time they're near.
OK, it may not be available in Polynesia, but 100 countries is pretty much "all countries"..... Anyway, we just a have different opinion, I am surprised so few iPhone users signed up. I really expected at 30-50% of users. Not 1%.
You seem to be forgetting that most (if not all) of those 800 million Apple account holders had had access to other music streaming service for over 3 years. If just 10% of them were interested in paying for streaming music, that would mean that there should be at least 80 million pay subscribers to streaming music now.
Numbers seems to indicate the only 30% on internet users are interested in streaming music and about 10% of those users are willing to pay for it.
So you have to figure that over 70% of Apple account holders have no interest in streaming music. Not even if it's for free. Not now and maybe never. And less than 5% are willing to pay for it. Otherwise, Spotify's and other music streaming services numbers would be much larger than what it is by now. And Apple Music free trial users would be larger than what it is. If Apple, with Apple Music, can't convince 5% of their account holders to sign up for their 3 month free music streaming trial offer, I doubt very much that they will ever get 5% to pay for it later. Unless they under cut the competition in pricing by at least 50%. Which would to lead to anti-trust lawsuits.
Comments
No need to be catty.
The point is, music files should not have to be 'Googled' for at all, right? It was purchased and installed at great expense over a long period of time and one button press in Music - gone!
I'm not saying the latter is necessarily bad, but rather that, in context, the former is odd.
I have my bets on which number the market would rather hear about.
The iTunes team is responsible for Apple Music not Jony Ive.
This is why Apple should stop releasing sales figures. No matter what they are they're considered underwhelming. ?WATCH did over $1B in revenue last quarter and everyone is calling that a flop. ?MUSIC could potentially also be another billion $ business and that's considered underwhelming. Sheeh.
It just means that the market has very big expectations in Apple. If their expectations were low, and released figures surprised them positively, readers of this website would complain about that, too ("Apple has shown again and again that they DISRUPT markets and absolutely KILL it! Why do these analysts on Wall Street INSIST on downplaying the incredible OPPORTUNITY Apple is addressing and have such low expectations even before they HAVE SEEN THE PRODUCT! You would think that by now, they would have realised that Apple products ALWAYS MASSIVELY OUTSELL the ridiculously low expectation of these analysts!").
11 million when it's free is not big at all.
This is strictly an opinion of yours that Apple Music is the best. It's not fact. You think that Apple Music is the best and that's great. Others have tried it, didn’t like it and went back to what they liked better.
11 million when it's free is not big at all.
According to a poster on this site, you and I are on some mind altering drugs for believing that achieving a 1.8% take-up rate of a new free service is not a lot. But I agree with you: I know no company in the world that would consider that a success, not for a major new, expensive, heavily advertised functionality like Music, that is in your face all the time.
Do you seriously think that all 11 million people will keep it? You're dreaming. So it's NOT $1.3B right now. Most won't keep it and pay for it.
But you always state that when another company has software bugs on the first go around its crap and not polished. You're just giving Apple a pass. Others are not.
Also, Iovine still acts as if he were some kind of an outsider observing events as they happen. His choice of words indicates he is not in charge of anything and I really wonder why he's there.
But that was one of the selling points of AppleMusic.
To have ONE APP to play all your music.
Again there are bugs in any version 1 product, Apple will fix it.
And that is why the User Experience is such a disaster: Apple Music and iTunes are a 'Jack of all trades, master of none'.
Concerning the bugs ... I have iTunes 12.12 installed over here. Not exactly a 1.0 product.
nonetheless, i'd prefer to give my money to apple if they would improve the service...both in terms of the user experience...and in terms of the features/capabilities.
$10/month seems high though. with beats, i was able to do a year for $100 all at once. wish apple would offer the same...
...but...but...ANDROID always makes everything OK doesn't it?
A few hundred million agree with you. Still doesn't make Android or any other OS an excuse for any shortcomings or needed improvements. Dismissing issues by dragging another competing platform/company into it saying they're no better in your opinion is pretty silly IMO and speaks more to a lack of excuses for whatever it is.
Kind of a meaningless stat. Who wouldn't try out a free service? Let's see what the number of paid members is in October,
I still haven't signed up for the free trial. I will at some point after the issues are fixed, but even after that, I'm not going to pay for it. It costs to much, at least for me. I just don't tune into a lot of music these days. So the price is not worth it. If their was a $5 a month option but have limited hours, I'd be fine with that. Right now I'm just doing Amazon Prime Music. The Selection of music is smaller, but again, I don't turn into a lot of music so it's fine and already part of Amazon prime I'm paying for anyway. Though for how much longer?!?! I don't buy as much from Amazon these days which is why I got it in the first place a number of years ago.
11 million Non-Paid Members currently is meaningless. Until the trial is up and they actually now have to PAY for the service is what really matters. Are those people going to be hooked to the service after 3 months? What happens after 3 months and it drops down to say 5 million?
Really? 30-50%? That is a ridiculous expectation.
Spotify/Pandora/ect all have free tiers or trial periods. Do you expect those services to have 30-50% conversion rates? What planet are YOU living on! Even more so since AppleMusic is NOT a free service.
11 million in a few weeks is AMAZING. Thats a revenue stream of $1.3 billion created in a few weeks that will keep growing.
When you inquire about 30-50% "conversion rates" with respect to Spotify/Pandora/etc, what are you talking about? Are you talking about the conversion from free tier to paid? Then I agree with you, but that is not what the previous poster is talking about. The previous poster expected a greater percentage of iOS users to simply sign up for the free trial, and I tend to agree with him: 1% is terribly low. I don't know what fraction of those will turn into paid subscribers.
If the industry is able to get 500,000,000 subscribers at $5 a month that would be $30 billion in annual revenue. The entire US revenue for music (digital, CD's, concerts, rights) was only $14 billion. Its obvious that there is massive growth opportunities.
I think that 500 million streaming music subscribers worldwide might be feasible, but most likely not if limited to the US. So we should probably be comparing the computed $30 billion revenue figure to the worldwide revenue for music, whatever number that is above and beyond the $14B US. Oh... but on the good side of the equation is this: you don't have to include concert revenue in the comparison, because live performances will still remain attractive. Perhaps even more so, because people using streaming services will discover new artists, become fans, and decide to go to their concerts the next time they're near.
OK, it may not be available in Polynesia, but 100 countries is pretty much "all countries"..... Anyway, we just a have different opinion, I am surprised so few iPhone users signed up. I really expected at 30-50% of users. Not 1%.
You seem to be forgetting that most (if not all) of those 800 million Apple account holders had had access to other music streaming service for over 3 years. If just 10% of them were interested in paying for streaming music, that would mean that there should be at least 80 million pay subscribers to streaming music now.
Numbers seems to indicate the only 30% on internet users are interested in streaming music and about 10% of those users are willing to pay for it.
So you have to figure that over 70% of Apple account holders have no interest in streaming music. Not even if it's for free. Not now and maybe never. And less than 5% are willing to pay for it. Otherwise, Spotify's and other music streaming services numbers would be much larger than what it is by now. And Apple Music free trial users would be larger than what it is. If Apple, with Apple Music, can't convince 5% of their account holders to sign up for their 3 month free music streaming trial offer, I doubt very much that they will ever get 5% to pay for it later. Unless they under cut the competition in pricing by at least 50%. Which would to lead to anti-trust lawsuits.
Umm. . . Start with the ones you were thinking of that "Apple will fix" ?
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/187510/apple-music-reaches-11m-trial-members-after-five-weeks#post_2757419
BTW, you're an investment banker on Wall Street aren't you?