Spotify has actually seen its business accelerate since Apple Music was launched in June 2015, a vice president with the company said on Monday, crediting the extra attention drawn to streaming services.
"Since Apple Music started we've been growing quicker and adding more users than before," Jonathan Forster explained in an interview with Reuters.
Blathering nonsense. Apple Music is more than compelling over the likes of Spotify. It’s just become more fashionable to bash Apple services while claiming to be a fan of the platform.
So that's why Apple is announcing in Apple Music redesign at WWDC?
Nothing wrong with improving the platform. 13 million paid subscribers in a little over a year is quite an accomplishment. How long did it take Spotify? And haven't they also made changes to their software during that time?
It is profitable by itself if it drives people that can see ads; you're comment is like saying search isn't profitable by itself.. It's all the same model. Everything is the same model. Apple has more than 50% of the high end, at the very high end its probably more than 75%. The problem with ads is they don't generate enough money really to pay for music streaming (as Spotify has realized); artists are now looking for real money from streaming and with the added competition for their resources, streaming them gets progressively more expensive.
Subsidizing it from other survives profits only work when the number of streamers is relatively low (which is still the case), not when it reaches hundreds of millions of people streaming all day long. The payout then for Google would be way too high.
Well, for who does search make money except Google, plus Alibaba in China where Google is not allowed? Bing has never been profitable for Microsoft and Yahoo is on the verge of folding. (Why else do would the EU and everyone else be suing Google over their search monopoly? No one else is making any money!) Spotify relies on ads for their free tier and subscriptions for their paid tier, but due to their low subscriber base, it isn't anywhere close to being enough to pay their very high infrastructure costs - as a provider of a cloud streaming on demand software as a service platform - PLUS the licensing fees for the content. And remember: this is their only product. So they would probably need three times as many subscription listeners and/or a massive amount of free listeners. And even if they add a huge number of users, their infrastructure costs will have to rise almost proportionately to meet the load.
Let me give you an example: Google. Despite the billions of search requests they get - there are a billion active Google Chrome users alone - plus all the data they sell, all the ads AND the billion users of YouTube (not to mention their Android and Google Cloud Services stuff) their profit is generally less than $8 billion a quarter. And not all of Google's stuff is free either: they have premium tiers for YouTube and Play Music, plus their movie/TV service is exclusively rent or buy just like iTunes. So if Google's billions of customers across all their services only amounted to $23 billion in profits in 2015, what chance does Spotify have of making a profit with 13 million free+subscription customers?
For perspective, Netflix has nearly 35 million for an exclusively subscription service, and their numbers are watched like a hawk by analysts. Amazon acknowledges that their Prime service is nowhere near profitable, and its only purpose is to get people to buy more stuff (somehow). Hulu similarly is merely a tertiary distribution channel for Comcast and Disney content, plus whoever is willing to license stuff to them on favorable terms, so they are under no pressure to be profitable either.
Music streaming only has a shot at being profitable for companies that already have a huge pre-existing cloud infrastructure primarily built and used for something else that generates money to ride on, so you will only have to expand it a little to add the extra service. Apple Music is able to ride on the existing infrastructure for iTunes and iCloud, and even exploit the iTunes Music catalog for licenses. Amazon, who was the second (or third, I forget whether they or the now-defunct Wal-Mart/Microsoft joint effort came first) major player in digital music downloads is able to do the same with licenses, and also their infrastructure for their online shopping and enterprise cloud. Google: more of the same. A ton of infrastructure already there for search, Google Cloud Services plus their Android stuff for Google Play Music to ride on and be added to. I get that similar to Netflix, Spotify probably doesn't own a lot of physical assets but instead mostly buys their infrastructure from cloud providers like AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Services but it is still extremely expensive. And note: when the cost of licensing content went up, Netflix got around that by producing more and more of their own original content - both TV series and B movies - and letting the more expensive rights go to Amazon and Hulu. Spotify doesn't have that option. They are going to have to retain latest hits from big name artists.
It is only going to be a matter of time before the big venture capital funds decide that the are tired of losing money. It has been 10 years, and they probably won't give them more than another 5. The only reason why they are still going is probably because the big VC people not wanting to admit that they were wrong when they bet on Spotify in the first place. Everyone in that VC industry wants to be known as the next Marc Andreeson or something; the "genius" who put money into the next Facebook or whatever before anyone else saw their potential. So they are going to keep that light on as long as possible, but at some point they are going to have to shut it off. It would be one thing if it was just Spotify that losing money. But everyone (or at least everyone where music streaming is their only product) is, and some have already gone out of business, including Rdio, acquired by Google who later folded its guts into Google Play. Music streaming is only viable if it is one of many services offered by a diverse company, not as a standalone business.
I am an Apple Music user and I love it. The UI was rough out of the gate but it is getting better and I getting better at using it. It some ways it is like Apple Maps...quietly improving over time.
I have looked over the shoulders at my friends use of Spotify. The UI seems simpler, more straight forward.
But the one thing I really like about Apple Music is that it has more depth in offerings with the years of artist iTunes exclusives. Apple Music is better at the end of the day from my perspective.
I prefer Google Play Music because it can be accessed on any device. The app is on Android (obviously) and iOS, and it can be accessed via the Chrome browser on Windows (including Windows Mobile), Mac OS X and Linux devices. It is also easy to upload your own content, even if you are on the free tier. If you are on the subscription tier, you can get a plan that includes subscription YouTube/YouTube Music, plus they have now integrated podcasting (though I have yet to try it because I have had a ton of podcasts on iTunes since like forever).
The only downsides: they use your content that you upload to advertise for their streaming options. Even if you search for artists/albums/tracks in your own library, the streaming options come up first. Also, purchasing new content is cumbersome: it actually takes you out of the Play Music app and launches you into the Google Play app. Another thing: they do the album/artist/song groupings like everyone else, but it is a mess because of the way that they handle guest artists on main albums ... their algorithm can't tell the difference. I think iTunes has the same issue, but iTunes gives you several options on how to display the content lists. Google only gives you one ... a huge icon for each item ... with no option for detail view, minimized view or anything, plus their HTLM5-type web page UI - which you are stuck with whether it is the Android/iOS app or the Chrome browser plugin - stinks for scrolling. So it is a typical Google product: excellent tech but with a poorly executed UX/UI that they will probably never fix. But I will probably stick with them because I own a bunch of different types of devices instead of mostly devices from a single ecosystem and I want to be able to access my songs from each.
Blathering nonsense. Apple Music is more than compelling over the likes of Spotify. It’s just become more fashionable to bash Apple services while claiming to be a fan of the platform.
More compelling over Spotify how? Not everyone has to or really like Apple Music despite being from Apple. Others simply do prefer Spotify or others. I really can't see anything that Apple Music provides better/more than others.
I tried Apple Music and found nothing it did more or better for me than Google Play Music which I get for only $7.99 per month and no ads on any YouTube videos.
And what does Play Music have that Apple Music doesn't?
this seems to be a problem nowadays. Everything is the same.
(Google Play Music) was first launched in 2013... and currently boasts 35 million songs. On top of that, users can upload 50,000 of their own songs to Google Play Music which will then be added to their library for streaming. Each song can be up to 300MB.
... you’ll get YouTube Red bundled in. A single account costs $9.99 while a family account can contain up to six members and costs $14.99. You can use Google Play Music for free, but you’ll be limited to using radio stations (with ads) and listening to music that you have personally uploaded to the service (no ads). Each account can have up to 10 authorized devices and you can de-authorize up to four devices per year."
Apple Music
Apple Music began life as Beats Music but was officially launched in its current form in 2015 and their catalog includes over 30 million songs. On top of that, users can upload up to 100,000 songs to iCloud to be streamed back to them, which is very similar to Google Play Music. Each song can be up to 200MB in size. Any music you have purchased in iTunes is also available for immediate streaming.
On top of that, Apple also has a 24/7 live radio station that plays all kinds of content including live music, interviews, and more. A single account costs $9.99 and family plans cost $14.99 which support up to six people. You can have up to 10 authorized devices and you can deauthorize as many devices as you want assuming that they’ve been inactive for up to 30 days. Currently, Apple Music has no free version and is the only one of the three to not have this.
Compatibility
In terms of compatibility, all three (included Spotify) of these services are available on most mobile and computer devices. However, we found that Apple Music had the worst mobile compatibility out of the three. Spotify and Google Play Music have web players which gives them additional compatibility on virtually anything with a web browser, a feature that Apple Music lacks entirely. That gives Spotify and Google Play Music an equal advantage over Apple Music in this category.
Design
Google Play Music definitely had the best looking interface, but its penchant for being flashy often requires extra taps and swipes by the user and we felt that it got in the way of the user experience. Apple Music has a surprisingly robust interface, but its outdated design and occasionally sloppy execution gave it a disjointed feel. It really felt like Spotify struck that perfect balance where it was simple and streamlined when it needed to be, but flashy, modern, and fun when the occasion required without getting in the way of the user experience.
Comments
Let me give you an example: Google. Despite the billions of search requests they get - there are a billion active Google Chrome users alone - plus all the data they sell, all the ads AND the billion users of YouTube (not to mention their Android and Google Cloud Services stuff) their profit is generally less than $8 billion a quarter. And not all of Google's stuff is free either: they have premium tiers for YouTube and Play Music, plus their movie/TV service is exclusively rent or buy just like iTunes. So if Google's billions of customers across all their services only amounted to $23 billion in profits in 2015, what chance does Spotify have of making a profit with 13 million free+subscription customers?
For perspective, Netflix has nearly 35 million for an exclusively subscription service, and their numbers are watched like a hawk by analysts. Amazon acknowledges that their Prime service is nowhere near profitable, and its only purpose is to get people to buy more stuff (somehow). Hulu similarly is merely a tertiary distribution channel for Comcast and Disney content, plus whoever is willing to license stuff to them on favorable terms, so they are under no pressure to be profitable either.
Music streaming only has a shot at being profitable for companies that already have a huge pre-existing cloud infrastructure primarily built and used for something else that generates money to ride on, so you will only have to expand it a little to add the extra service. Apple Music is able to ride on the existing infrastructure for iTunes and iCloud, and even exploit the iTunes Music catalog for licenses. Amazon, who was the second (or third, I forget whether they or the now-defunct Wal-Mart/Microsoft joint effort came first) major player in digital music downloads is able to do the same with licenses, and also their infrastructure for their online shopping and enterprise cloud. Google: more of the same. A ton of infrastructure already there for search, Google Cloud Services plus their Android stuff for Google Play Music to ride on and be added to. I get that similar to Netflix, Spotify probably doesn't own a lot of physical assets but instead mostly buys their infrastructure from cloud providers like AWS, Microsoft Azure and Google Cloud Services but it is still extremely expensive. And note: when the cost of licensing content went up, Netflix got around that by producing more and more of their own original content - both TV series and B movies - and letting the more expensive rights go to Amazon and Hulu. Spotify doesn't have that option. They are going to have to retain latest hits from big name artists.
It is only going to be a matter of time before the big venture capital funds decide that the are tired of losing money. It has been 10 years, and they probably won't give them more than another 5. The only reason why they are still going is probably because the big VC people not wanting to admit that they were wrong when they bet on Spotify in the first place. Everyone in that VC industry wants to be known as the next Marc Andreeson or something; the "genius" who put money into the next Facebook or whatever before anyone else saw their potential. So they are going to keep that light on as long as possible, but at some point they are going to have to shut it off. It would be one thing if it was just Spotify that losing money. But everyone (or at least everyone where music streaming is their only product) is, and some have already gone out of business, including Rdio, acquired by Google who later folded its guts into Google Play. Music streaming is only viable if it is one of many services offered by a diverse company, not as a standalone business.
The only downsides: they use your content that you upload to advertise for their streaming options. Even if you search for artists/albums/tracks in your own library, the streaming options come up first. Also, purchasing new content is cumbersome: it actually takes you out of the Play Music app and launches you into the Google Play app. Another thing: they do the album/artist/song groupings like everyone else, but it is a mess because of the way that they handle guest artists on main albums ... their algorithm can't tell the difference. I think iTunes has the same issue, but iTunes gives you several options on how to display the content lists. Google only gives you one ... a huge icon for each item ... with no option for detail view, minimized view or anything, plus their HTLM5-type web page UI - which you are stuck with whether it is the Android/iOS app or the Chrome browser plugin - stinks for scrolling. So it is a typical Google product: excellent tech but with a poorly executed UX/UI that they will probably never fix. But I will probably stick with them because I own a bunch of different types of devices instead of mostly devices from a single ecosystem and I want to be able to access my songs from each.
It's a really good detailed article and all three services are judged fairly IMHO. AndroidAuthority isn't an over-the-top fan site.
Google Play Music
(Google Play Music) was first launched in 2013... and currently boasts 35 million songs. On top of that, users can upload 50,000 of their own songs to Google Play Music which will then be added to their library for streaming. Each song can be up to 300MB.
... you’ll get YouTube Red bundled in. A single account costs $9.99 while a family account can contain up to six members and costs $14.99. You can use Google Play Music for free, but you’ll be limited to using radio stations (with ads) and listening to music that you have personally uploaded to the service (no ads). Each account can have up to 10 authorized devices and you can de-authorize up to four devices per year."
Apple Music
Apple Music began life as Beats Music but was officially launched in its current form in 2015 and their catalog includes over 30 million songs. On top of that, users can upload up to 100,000 songs to iCloud to be streamed back to them, which is very similar to Google Play Music. Each song can be up to 200MB in size. Any music you have purchased in iTunes is also available for immediate streaming.
On top of that, Apple also has a 24/7 live radio station that plays all kinds of content including live music, interviews, and more. A single account costs $9.99 and family plans cost $14.99 which support up to six people. You can have up to 10 authorized devices and you can deauthorize as many devices as you want assuming that they’ve been inactive for up to 30 days. Currently, Apple Music has no free version and is the only one of the three to not have this.
Compatibility
In terms of compatibility, all three (included Spotify) of these services are available on most mobile and computer devices. However, we found that Apple Music had the worst mobile compatibility out of the three. Spotify and Google Play Music have web players which gives them additional compatibility on virtually anything with a web browser, a feature that Apple Music lacks entirely. That gives Spotify and Google Play Music an equal advantage over Apple Music in this category.
Design
Google Play Music definitely had the best looking interface, but its penchant for being flashy often requires extra taps and swipes by the user and we felt that it got in the way of the user experience. Apple Music has a surprisingly robust interface, but its outdated design and occasionally sloppy execution gave it a disjointed feel. It really felt like Spotify struck that perfect balance where it was simple and streamlined when it needed to be, but flashy, modern, and fun when the occasion required without getting in the way of the user experience.