Not so sure...why INTRODUCE such as mess except that Apple conscientiously wanted this model? Those aren't trivial design errors...they impact use for tens of millions of users...no wonder many walked away if the survey is accurate...I turned it off already for these reasons.
I am going to give it a try when my Sirius/XM expires later this year. I figure by then it will have all of the quirks worked out. At $14.99 the family plan is a great deal, even cheaper than my satellite radio which I only have In one car. True, I would be using my data plan as well, but music doesn't eat up much compared to video. Maybe by then they will have the Beatles on board.
Quite the opposite. Streaming music will never go mainstream until they drop the price.
You can get Netflix for $7.99 a month. Why the hell would I pay $9.99 for just AUDIO. Movies cost way more to produce than music.
Until they price it at $4.99 you won't see massive buy-in by the mainstream.
Of course they can make money.
$4.99 x 12 months x 400,000,000 users = $24 billion in revenue.
That's more revenue than what the entire music industry will make in 2016.
What an asinine comparison. How many movies does the average person watch per DAY? Compare that to how much music the average person listens to per DAY? I've had netflix subscriptions where I was watching on 1-2 movies per month, and some months nothing. With music, I listen to at least a dozen songs every day. So no, ridiculous comparison. Not to mention the fact that Netflix has a very limited Movie selection with massive omissions, while Apple Music probably has 95% of the music out there.
I don't know - I listen to audio far more than I watch video (at the office, in the car, in the shower, etc.), and I have songs I've listened to hundreds of times - don't think there are many movies/TV episodes I've watched more than a handful of times. Audio might be actually be worth more than video.
Well that's the thing isn't it? You can listen to a hundred tracks a day. While you're working, while you're working out, while you're studying, hell, while you're sleeping. Video tends to be consumed in a more focused manner. Most people don't just have Netflix streaming in the background while they're working. Or maybe they do what do I know. You can listen to more music faster, so they can charge more for it?
True. Until you realize 90% of the music you bought from the last 20 years you don't listen to anymore.
But I'm willing to bet that most music listeners don't care to listen to 99% of the new music they have available for streaming and they will actually spend just as much time, or more, listening to the 10% of the music they bought than the 1% of new music they stream.
For me, 10% of the music I bought in the last 20 years is still a lot and lot of music. Music that I don't mind listening to over and over again. Music that would still take me weeks to listen to, 24/7, just once.
Which beg the question, when you stream music that you already bought, do Apple still have to pay the artist for the stream? If you own the music in your iTunes account, Apple should not have to pay the artist for any stream of it as you already bought the music and are entitled to listen to it an unlimited amount of times. Maybe that's why AppleMusic combines your iTunes account with your subscription streaming. This so that Apple don't have to pay for streaming of music you already own. Or do the artist still demand payment because AppleMusic streaming is not the same as playing the music from your own in iTunes library? Even though it's the same music.
I could see how artist would then prefer Spotify. Since Spotify don't know what music you already bought, they will pay the artist just base on you streaming the music. So many artist are getting paid by music listeners that already own the music but are streaming it. However, Apple can take the music you bought, (and that is in your iTunes library), and use that for streaming in AppleMusic (or use as a reference), thus avoid paying the artist for the stream since Apple used the copy of the music from your iTunes library instead (or Apple has proof that you bought the music.). This may not matter to the AppleMusic subscribers as they are paying for unlimited streams, but it may matter to Apple's bottom line if enough AppleMusic subscribers still like to listen to music they already own. Even if it's just 10% of it.
Of course the other obvious reason why Apple would combine your iTunes library with your AppleMusic subscription is that you may have music in your library that aren't available for streaming. Like The Beatles.
Nope, no change in headline. What a pathetic publication.
Yes, no ethics, no shame, and yes no information (since the title never reflects the article or even reality).
They are the anti-journalism.
Usually, if they weren't unethical dirtbags, the headline would be amended, the lead paragraph would be changed, and a link
to a second article with the new info that completely changes the tone/veracity of the initial one would be added. If the second article completely discredits the first, the link would be near the top. If it is only a smaller rectification, the update can be at the end (sometimes with no other linked articles if the rectification/response is minor and doesn't merit a new article). In this case, it is a complete trashing of the original article, yet they kept the garbage as is with no amendment.
This kind of clickbait is why I never click on any sensational news articles on controversial companies/subjects, unless it comes through several of the few semi-reputable news companies left (even them have slightly more sensational titles than 10 years ago).
If I get 2 of these news companies to report the same news, I say... Hey, it's really something to look at, worry about... Otherwise, it's meh.
That sure is a business model no one will be fed up with within 2-3 years...
Yes, no ethics, no shame, and yes no information (since the title never reflects the article or even reality).
They are the anti-journalism.
Usually, if they weren't unethical dirtbags, the headline would be amended, the lead paragraph would be changed, and a link
to a second article with the new info that completely changes the tone/veracity of the initial one would be added. If the second article completely discredits the first, the link would be near the top. If it is only a smaller rectification, the update can be at the end (sometimes with no other linked articles if the rectification/response is minor and doesn't merit a new article). In this case, it is a complete trashing of the original article, yet they kept the garbage as is with no amendment.
This kind of clickbait is why I never click on any sensational news articles on controversial companies/subjects, unless it comes through several of the few semi-reputable news companies left (even them have slightly more sensational titles than 10 years ago).
If I get 2 of these news companies to report the same news, I say... Hey, it's really something to look at, worry about... Otherwise, it's meh.
That sure is a business model no one will be fed up with within 2-3 years...
Business Insider, Huffington Post, New York Times, Buzzfeed, The Verge... all crap and garbage delivery systems. This is why TMZ is so refreshing. They don't pretend to be news.
Comments
dumb-thing
Not so sure...why INTRODUCE such as mess except that Apple conscientiously wanted this model? Those aren't trivial design errors...they impact use for tens of millions of users...no wonder many walked away if the survey is accurate...I turned it off already for these reasons.
For the cost of 2 lattes a month, you have access to the world's largest music collection.
And curated just 'for you', available everywhere.
Quite the opposite. Streaming music will never go mainstream until they drop the price.
You can get Netflix for $7.99 a month. Why the hell would I pay $9.99 for just AUDIO. Movies cost way more to produce than music.
Until they price it at $4.99 you won't see massive buy-in by the mainstream.
Of course they can make money.
$4.99 x 12 months x 400,000,000 users = $24 billion in revenue.
That's more revenue than what the entire music industry will make in 2016.
What an asinine comparison. How many movies does the average person watch per DAY? Compare that to how much music the average person listens to per DAY? I've had netflix subscriptions where I was watching on 1-2 movies per month, and some months nothing. With music, I listen to at least a dozen songs every day. So no, ridiculous comparison. Not to mention the fact that Netflix has a very limited Movie selection with massive omissions, while Apple Music probably has 95% of the music out there.
Nope, no change in headline. What a pathetic publication.
Well that's the thing isn't it? You can listen to a hundred tracks a day. While you're working, while you're working out, while you're studying, hell, while you're sleeping. Video tends to be consumed in a more focused manner. Most people don't just have Netflix streaming in the background while they're working. Or maybe they do what do I know. You can listen to more music faster, so they can charge more for it?
Nope, no change in headline. What a pathetic publication.
Click. click. click. click.
Profit!
True. Until you realize 90% of the music you bought from the last 20 years you don't listen to anymore.
But I'm willing to bet that most music listeners don't care to listen to 99% of the new music they have available for streaming and they will actually spend just as much time, or more, listening to the 10% of the music they bought than the 1% of new music they stream.
For me, 10% of the music I bought in the last 20 years is still a lot and lot of music. Music that I don't mind listening to over and over again. Music that would still take me weeks to listen to, 24/7, just once.
Which beg the question, when you stream music that you already bought, do Apple still have to pay the artist for the stream? If you own the music in your iTunes account, Apple should not have to pay the artist for any stream of it as you already bought the music and are entitled to listen to it an unlimited amount of times. Maybe that's why AppleMusic combines your iTunes account with your subscription streaming. This so that Apple don't have to pay for streaming of music you already own. Or do the artist still demand payment because AppleMusic streaming is not the same as playing the music from your own in iTunes library? Even though it's the same music.
I could see how artist would then prefer Spotify. Since Spotify don't know what music you already bought, they will pay the artist just base on you streaming the music. So many artist are getting paid by music listeners that already own the music but are streaming it. However, Apple can take the music you bought, (and that is in your iTunes library), and use that for streaming in AppleMusic (or use as a reference), thus avoid paying the artist for the stream since Apple used the copy of the music from your iTunes library instead (or Apple has proof that you bought the music.). This may not matter to the AppleMusic subscribers as they are paying for unlimited streams, but it may matter to Apple's bottom line if enough AppleMusic subscribers still like to listen to music they already own. Even if it's just 10% of it.
Of course the other obvious reason why Apple would combine your iTunes library with your AppleMusic subscription is that you may have music in your library that aren't available for streaming. Like The Beatles.
Click. click. click. click.
Profit!
Not for long.
Nope, no change in headline. What a pathetic publication.
Yes, no ethics, no shame, and yes no information (since the title never reflects the article or even reality).
They are the anti-journalism.
Usually, if they weren't unethical dirtbags, the headline would be amended, the lead paragraph would be changed, and a link
to a second article with the new info that completely changes the tone/veracity of the initial one would be added. If the second article completely discredits the first, the link would be near the top. If it is only a smaller rectification, the update can be at the end (sometimes with no other linked articles if the rectification/response is minor and doesn't merit a new article). In this case, it is a complete trashing of the original article, yet they kept the garbage as is with no amendment.
This kind of clickbait is why I never click on any sensational news articles on controversial companies/subjects, unless it comes through several of the few semi-reputable news companies left (even them have slightly more sensational titles than 10 years ago).
If I get 2 of these news companies to report the same news, I say... Hey, it's really something to look at, worry about... Otherwise, it's meh.
That sure is a business model no one will be fed up with within 2-3 years...
Yes, no ethics, no shame, and yes no information (since the title never reflects the article or even reality).
They are the anti-journalism.
Usually, if they weren't unethical dirtbags, the headline would be amended, the lead paragraph would be changed, and a link
to a second article with the new info that completely changes the tone/veracity of the initial one would be added. If the second article completely discredits the first, the link would be near the top. If it is only a smaller rectification, the update can be at the end (sometimes with no other linked articles if the rectification/response is minor and doesn't merit a new article). In this case, it is a complete trashing of the original article, yet they kept the garbage as is with no amendment.
This kind of clickbait is why I never click on any sensational news articles on controversial companies/subjects, unless it comes through several of the few semi-reputable news companies left (even them have slightly more sensational titles than 10 years ago).
If I get 2 of these news companies to report the same news, I say... Hey, it's really something to look at, worry about... Otherwise, it's meh.
That sure is a business model no one will be fed up with within 2-3 years...
Business Insider, Huffington Post, New York Times, Buzzfeed, The Verge... all crap and garbage delivery systems. This is why TMZ is so refreshing. They don't pretend to be news.