Apple refutes Apple Music survey, says 79% of trial customers still using service
Commenting on a recent survey conducted by research firm MusicWatch, which claimed only 52 percent of Apple Music trial customers still use the service, Apple said the actual attrition rate is closer to 21 percent.
Apple provided the correct Apple Music numbers to The Verge shortly after the MusicWatch survey was released on Tuesday. Specifically, Apple said 79 percent of people who signed up for a three-month free trial are still active users.
The admonition brings into question other data from today's report. According to survey respondents, 64 percent said they were extremely or very likely to continue paying for Apple Music once the trial period ends, though 61 percent already turned off auto-renewal features in iTunes. Perhaps most damning was a statistic claiming 48 percent of users who tried Apple Music since its debut in June had stopped using the service.
Apple stopped short of offering in-depth statistics or analysis and it is unclear how the company defines active users. The 79 percent number also sheds no light on potential conversion rates, or those who intend to pay for Apple Music services after their trial period expires. At the same time, MusicWatch's survey results regarding the percentage of customers who turned off auto-renewal is slightly misleading. That a customer opts out of automated renewal service does not necessarily serve as an indication of that person's intent to subscribe, they might simply be averse to such billing systems.
What Apple's statement makes clear, however, is that research reports drawing from customer surveys can at times be completely off target. Or at least inconsistent in interpreting gathered data. Only Apple knows how well Apple Music is fairing in a field full of strong competitors, though even it can't predict what subscription numbers will be like in September with any certainty.
So far, Apple is playing its music streaming cards close to the vest, only revealing earlier this month that 11 million users had signed up for trial accounts five weeks in.
Apple provided the correct Apple Music numbers to The Verge shortly after the MusicWatch survey was released on Tuesday. Specifically, Apple said 79 percent of people who signed up for a three-month free trial are still active users.
The admonition brings into question other data from today's report. According to survey respondents, 64 percent said they were extremely or very likely to continue paying for Apple Music once the trial period ends, though 61 percent already turned off auto-renewal features in iTunes. Perhaps most damning was a statistic claiming 48 percent of users who tried Apple Music since its debut in June had stopped using the service.
Apple stopped short of offering in-depth statistics or analysis and it is unclear how the company defines active users. The 79 percent number also sheds no light on potential conversion rates, or those who intend to pay for Apple Music services after their trial period expires. At the same time, MusicWatch's survey results regarding the percentage of customers who turned off auto-renewal is slightly misleading. That a customer opts out of automated renewal service does not necessarily serve as an indication of that person's intent to subscribe, they might simply be averse to such billing systems.
What Apple's statement makes clear, however, is that research reports drawing from customer surveys can at times be completely off target. Or at least inconsistent in interpreting gathered data. Only Apple knows how well Apple Music is fairing in a field full of strong competitors, though even it can't predict what subscription numbers will be like in September with any certainty.
So far, Apple is playing its music streaming cards close to the vest, only revealing earlier this month that 11 million users had signed up for trial accounts five weeks in.
Comments
How would Apple do this? You input your Spotify username and password so that Apple can parse your account to recreate those playlists or does Spotify have an export option that Apple Music could then use to import your playlists? The latter seems unlikely, even though you compare it to an address book that has that option, and the former seems like it might be crossing some legal boundaries. If not, I implore you to you write to Apple requesting that feature.
Glad Apple responded to this horse-shit with real data. Predictably, troll-loving sites like Macrumors and theVerge have yet to update with this new info.
EDIT: Oh, even worse they did "update it", by burying Apple's response at the end of the article in fineprint (which most won't get to anyway), and leaving the headline exactly as is.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/18/9172309/people-are-giving-up-on-apple-music-survey
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/18/apple-music-adoption-musicwatch-data/
So 21% of people who signed up (11 million in the first five weeks out of how many Apple IDs?) aren't even using it when it's free. Not defining what an "active user" is doesn't sound too good either.
So 21% of people who signed up (11 million in the first five weeks out of how many Apple IDs?) aren't even using it when it's free. Not defining what an "active user" is doesn't sound too good either.
Because if they didn't like it, but it was free, clearly they should be using it, because...... wait what?
But what's a "active user"? Am I an active user that only brings up Apple Music once or twice a week for a song or two now but listens to my other service practically all day? Once my trial ends I definitely won't be a active user at all. That's what he was trying to convey.
Before taking any of this data seriously, I would ask who commissioned the survey, what were the parameters, the sample size, the standard deviation, the margin of error and numerous other questions that would validate or invalidate MusicWatch's assertions. Most surveys by tech or tech related research firms don't stand up to scrutiny and draw conclusions not supported by the facts. In this case, without the parameters and other related information about the study, I am going to say it's worthless. And since we know Apple has not shared any data relating to this, I'm going say it's a level beyond worthless and a bit past BS.
The first source of errors are often the questions themselves usually; but in this case, making sure your sample represents the overall pop of users is probably the main problem.
The verge might as well commit ritual suicide because they got their ass handed to them in a wheel barrow, yes they're that much of an ass...
Because if they didn't like it, but it was free, clearly they should be using it, because...... wait what?
After the 90 day grace period, any user will be required to pay $10 for the single user account (or $15 for a family account). If these people aren't even using it when it's free, do you think they will pay for it?
But what's a "active user"? Am I an active user that only brings up Apple Music once or twice a week for a song or two now but listens to my other service practically all day? Once my trial ends I definitely won't be a active user at all. That's what he was trying to convey.
But that still makes you an active user, doesn't it?
Do I think those numbers will hold after the free trial? No. Do I think Apple will release better data than a fullofshit Music Watch bash Apple piece? Yep. And that is what was being twisted by his failure to convey.
After the 90 day grace period, any user will be required to pay $10 for the single user account (or $15 for a family account). If these people aren't even using it when it's free, do you think they will pay for it?
I don't think anyone claimed they would. But to suggest that the number of people not using it is more important than the number using it is misleading. Once it is not free the people already not using it won't change their minds too quickly. We can throw them out already.
The real issue is how many of those currently using will stay when the trial is up. Bringing up the people already dropped out is completely useless. How many signed up just because it was free and never used it at all? How many never even gave it a single listen? None of those people are potential sales.
Have you ever done demos? You don't count the people who walk past the booth and never try the product. You count the people who try and buy vs the people who try and don't buy. That tells you something.
I remain amazed at the number of AI users right here who desperately want apple Music to fail and will latch onto any rumor or report that confirms their negative opinion while rejecting anything that indicates otherwise including Apple’s own response.
I don't think anyone claimed they would. But to suggest that the number of people not using it is more important than the number using it is misleading. Once it is not free the people already not using it won't change their minds too quickly. We can throw them out already.
The real issue is how many of those currently using will stay when the trial is up. Bringing up the people already dropped out is completely useless. How many signed up just because it was free and never used it at all? How many never even gave it a single listen? None of those people are potential sales.
Have you ever done demos? You don't count the people who walk past the booth and never try the product. You count the people who try and buy vs the people who try and don't buy. That tells you something.
I think if only 25% of everyone who ever tries it, which eventually will be a fair amount of Apple users, converts to paying, Apple will dominate massively the streaming market. I think with the family plan in particular is unbeatable and that will Spotify A LOT.
After the 90 day grace period, any user will be required to pay $10 for the single user account (or $15 for a family account). If these people aren't even using it when it's free, do you think they will pay for it?
20% are not using it after tying it. That's all Apple gave us. Everything else from you is FUD.
Everyone I know owns a iPhone, none have Apple Music turned on. That is about 22 people locally. I didn't even download the IOS update until the second update and immediately checked to see that Apple Music was off. Don't want it, don't need it and I don't want to increase my data charges to use it.
Well, good for you then; you know what you like.
Can you vouch with 100% certainty that all your Iphone buddies will do the same forever...
Forever's a mighty long time (so says Prince in Lets go Crazy...)
So, what is your point?
Glad Apple responded to this horse-shit with real data. Predictably, troll-loving sites like Macrumors and theVerge have yet to update with this new info.
EDIT: Oh, even worse they did "update it", by burying Apple's response at the end of the article in fineprint (which most won't get to anyway), and leaving the headline exactly as is.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/18/9172309/people-are-giving-up-on-apple-music-survey
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/18/apple-music-adoption-musicwatch-data/
Most articles on any site that have an update are usually posted at the bottom. Unless you're a major news site like CNN, and reporting developing info.
Most articles on any site that have an update are usually posted at the bottom. Unles s you're a major news site like CNN, and reporting developing info.
Well, that'a the OPPOSITE of good reporting. If new info come in that changes something major to the news tone and content, you don't fracking bury it at the bottom with the same god damn clickbait title and no change to the your introductory paragraph.
You issue a followup article under a new byline and put a link to that new article at the bottom of the previous one.
The title should reflect the article. That's it.
All other excuses coming from lazy ass wanna be reporter sites just makes them look unethical.
You can ad things at the bottom when its breaking news and your adding to the same news as you go. Say, "massive Tsunami hits Japan", which then gets developed under this byline as news come along.
In this case, the info related in the byline are said to be FALSE by the company who actually knows about them. That invalidates the whole article and merits its own article.