Apple Music is a failure. I said this a few weeks ago on this forum. Apple is very bad at content services, Apple wants similar profit margins as its hardware business. This is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, period.
Apple Music has about half the paid subs as Spotify, having begun much later (2014 versus 2008) and its distribution is far narrower than Spotify's. I wouldn't call that a failure. Also, consider that Spotify is not profitable, but eventually needs to be. Apple Music may or may not be profitable, we don't know, but it doesn't need to be as it serve another purpose; to fill out the Apple ecosystem and give Apple representation as a leader in the realm of music, which has long been a part of Apple culture.
Look at in another way. The 27 million Apple Music subscribers is only a fraction of iPhone users. Apple Music is not attractive to many iPhone users. Is this a stronger argument that it is a failure?
No it's just more nonsense. Is Podcasts a failure because not everyone uses it?
Youre using an absurd measure of success, rather than the normal ones used -- paying customers and revenue.
Apple Music is a failure. I said this a few weeks ago on this forum. Apple is very bad at content services, Apple wants similar profit margins as its hardware business. This is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, period.
Apple Music has about half the paid subs as Spotify, having begun much later (2014 versus 2008) and its distribution is far narrower than Spotify's. I wouldn't call that a failure. Also, consider that Spotify is not profitable, but eventually needs to be. Apple Music may or may not be profitable, we don't know, but it doesn't need to be as it serve another purpose; to fill out the Apple ecosystem and give Apple representation as a leader in the realm of music, which has long been a part of Apple culture.
Look at in another way. The 27 million Apple Music subscribers is only a fraction of iPhone users. Apple Music is not attractive to many iPhone users. Is this a stronger argument that it is a failure?
No it's just more nonsense. Is Podcasts a failure because not everyone uses it?
Youre using an absurd measure of success, rather than the normal ones used -- paying customers and revenue.
Apple Music is only good to diehard music lovers. 27 million is as far as it can go.
It is not worth paying $120 per year. Amazon prime is $130 per year. You get more services besides music. Apple is fooling a lot of end users.
Here in the UK at least a Prime membership (that includes more services besides music) does not give you full access to Amazon music.
For that you need the Amazon Music Unlimited package at an extra £7.99 per month above & beyond your £79 per year Amazon Prime membership so you're not comparing apples to apples if you'll excuse the pun!
For Amazon Music Unlimited on its own without Prime membership it's the same cost as Apple Music at £9.99 per month.
Apple Music is a failure. I said this a few weeks ago on this forum. Apple is very bad at content services, Apple wants similar profit margins as its hardware business. This is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, period.
Apple Music has about half the paid subs as Spotify, having begun much later (2014 versus 2008) and its distribution is far narrower than Spotify's. I wouldn't call that a failure. Also, consider that Spotify is not profitable, but eventually needs to be. Apple Music may or may not be profitable, we don't know, but it doesn't need to be as it serve another purpose; to fill out the Apple ecosystem and give Apple representation as a leader in the realm of music, which has long been a part of Apple culture.
Look at in another way. The 27 million Apple Music subscribers is only a fraction of iPhone users. Apple Music is not attractive to many iPhone users. Is this a stronger argument that it is a failure?
No it's just more nonsense. Is Podcasts a failure because not everyone uses it?
Youre using an absurd measure of success, rather than the normal ones used -- paying customers and revenue.
Apple Music is only good to diehard music lovers. 27 million is as far as it can go.
Apple Music is a failure. I said this a few weeks ago on this forum. Apple is very bad at content services, Apple wants similar profit margins as its hardware business. This is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, period.
Re: "failure"...
Here is a simple calculation: Annual Revenue = 20,000,000 paid subscribers x $10/month x 12 months = $2.4 billion
It's only 2 years old.
Any business with $2.4B of revenue after only 2 years is absolutely NOT a failure. It's big, growing, and profitable.
It is an incorrect calculation as well, how are you accounting for the many family plans they will have
Apple Music is a failure. I said this a few weeks ago on this forum. Apple is very bad at content services, Apple wants similar profit margins as its hardware business. This is stupid. Stupid, stupid, stupid, period.
Apple Music has about half the paid subs as Spotify, having begun much later (2014 versus 2008) and its distribution is far narrower than Spotify's. I wouldn't call that a failure. Also, consider that Spotify is not profitable, but eventually needs to be. Apple Music may or may not be profitable, we don't know, but it doesn't need to be as it serve another purpose; to fill out the Apple ecosystem and give Apple representation as a leader in the realm of music, which has long been a part of Apple culture.
Look at in another way. The 27 million Apple Music subscribers is only a fraction of iPhone users. Apple Music is not attractive to many iPhone users. Is this a stronger argument that it is a failure?
No it's just more nonsense. Is Podcasts a failure because not everyone uses it?
Youre using an absurd measure of success, rather than the normal ones used -- paying customers and revenue.
Apple Music is only good to diehard music lovers. 27 million is as far as it can go.
We'll see. I don't consider myself a diehard music person but we have a family plan.
Regardless, that doesn't make it a failure. So your terminology is whack. Niche != failure.
Apple won't introduce a simple, streaming-only app (like Spotify) and instead continues to confuse users with an iTunes app that's a cluster-f of purchase and streaming.
Yes, this nonsense comes up pretty regularly still; often parroted by people who haven't taken a minute to think it through. So for the pseudo-geeks out there, let's run through the logic once again: why doesn't Apple provide app for Apple Music?
An Apple customer is not interested in the source of the music; they are interested in the music. An Apple customer thinks, "I'd like to hear Sympathy for the Devil", so he then starts the music app and plays "Sympathy for the Devil" unconcerned as to whether it was a track he downloaded, ripped from a CD or streamed from Apple Music.
Under the pseudo-geek scheme, the Apple customer has to think "Now where will I find the song?" Before he can play "Sympathy for the Devil" he has to remember where to find it. "Now, do I stream that one, or did is it part of my library?"
So what you want is for Apple to introduce a scheme whereby their customers have to remember which application to use before they can play their music.
Jesus man, it's not that hard. You subscribe to a music streaming service. You just tap the icon for same. It's not like you forgot that you bought the damn thing. How the hell did we get anything done before the iPhone? It was the mush between our ears. And believe it or not, it hasn't dissolved in the last ten years.
"It's not that hard"? Seriously?
You know what else wasn't that hard? Smart phones before the iPhone came along. Maybe Apple shouldn't have bothered because you know … Windows Mobile wasn't that hard.
Some people have tens of thousands of songs scattered between streaming services, ripped Cds and downloaded tracks. Some people who listen to music might have a good memory for a song, but wouldn't be able to remember whether it was streamed or downloaded. Some people I've had the pleasure of knowing cannot remember anything apart from the music they like and their favourite colours. So for these people I'm afraid it is "that hard".
I'm amazed at the number of people around here who can't see any further than the screen in front of them. That's the internet I guess.
Comments
No it's just more nonsense. Is Podcasts a failure because not everyone uses it?
Youre using an absurd measure of success, rather than the normal ones used -- paying customers and revenue.
For that you need the Amazon Music Unlimited package at an extra £7.99 per month above & beyond your £79 per year Amazon Prime membership so you're not comparing apples to apples if you'll excuse the pun!
For Amazon Music Unlimited on its own without Prime membership it's the same cost as Apple Music at £9.99 per month.
Someone ^^^ hasn't seen Spotify's financials.
*stifled chuckle*
Regardless, that doesn't make it a failure. So your terminology is whack. Niche != failure.
"It's not that hard"?
Seriously?
You know what else wasn't that hard? Smart phones before the iPhone came along. Maybe Apple shouldn't have bothered because you know … Windows Mobile wasn't that hard.
Some people have tens of thousands of songs scattered between streaming services, ripped Cds and downloaded tracks. Some people who listen to music might have a good memory for a song, but wouldn't be able to remember whether it was streamed or downloaded. Some people I've had the pleasure of knowing cannot remember anything apart from the music they like and their favourite colours. So for these people I'm afraid it is "that hard".
I'm amazed at the number of people around here who can't see any further than the screen in front of them. That's the internet I guess.