Apple Music hits landmark 40 million paid subscribers

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 28
    badmonkbadmonk Posts: 1,266member
    I collect vinyl records and i find the combination of apple music, carplay and airpods to be an unbeatable combination to screen music before i waste money on buying an album i won’t love over the longterm...and i still buy CDs for art, photos and liner notes (aka the roxy music super deluxe version of the debut record, etc).

    it is all good. $10/month for apple music is a small price for a music lover.
    edited April 2018 watto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 28
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,823moderator
    In Bloomberg the other day, the total of all streaming services was less than 40% of the income to labels. We never hear this, but always hear the PR that it is undisputed future of music.
    That 40% would include all services.
    In the fullness of time, streaming is the future.  I won’t use the word undisputed, as people may opt to dispute anything they like, including the shape of the earth, but there are huge advantages to streaming versus purchasing and maintaining a personal music library, when/if factors like music quality are held equal.

    In the old days, you bought the music you wanted to control, so you could curate your playlists and listen to what you want when you want.  You built a library of such music, at exhorbitant cost, at least those of us who didn't outright steal tracks from peer-to-peer [illegal] sharing sites.  To own and keep up-to-date a multiple thousand track library would cost thousands of dollars to build, and perhaps hundreds more per year to keep fresh as new music is released.

    Today, under the paid streaming model, at about $10/month, you can have access to 40 million tracks as your personal library, from which you can build playlists and access any time from anywhere.  $10/month, $120/year, for the rest of your life, might come to only a fraction of what it would have cost in the past to initially build a 6000 track library.  Ultra convenience at far lower cost to have a lifetime of constantly refreshed music and easily created playlists, curated stations, commentary, etc.  

    Yeah, it’s the future, until something better comes along.

    watto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 28
    kruegdudekruegdude Posts: 340member
    clarker99 said:

    Totally agree and I’d throw in my HomePod purchase sealing the deal. Easy as it was to play the music on my phone or through Apple TV, I didn’t “surf” tracks the same way, bouncing easily to another song as it took my fancy, or just throw on my New Music or Chill mixes. I just throw that at Siri now and away we go. Flippin brilliant. 
    Yes, HomePod has increased the value of Apple Music. Very cool seeing my young kids walk up and say ‘play Hey Jude’ or ‘Play the Moana’ soundtrack.

    AirPods have also helped increase my music listening. Prob my fav Apple product since my 1st iPod? I think they are incredible.
    Your kids like “Hey Jude”? That’s cool!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 24 of 28
    kruegdudekruegdude Posts: 340member
    mavemufc said:
    Good to see them getting bigger and bigger and hopefully overtake Spotify at some point.
    Why? Why does it have to come to that? They both can go-exist together. Just as many, if not more people love Spotify as they do Apple Music. 

    Apple let is awesome but sometimes people like you just have to realize that Apple isn’t always the best or the only choices. 
    There is a war going on between armies of light and dark. Pick a side and let loose to hogs of war!
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 28
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    In Bloomberg the other day, the total of all streaming services was less than 40% of the income to labels. We never hear this, but always hear the PR that it is undisputed future of music.
    That 40% would include all services.
    In the fullness of time, streaming is the future.  I won’t use the word undisputed, as people may opt to dispute anything they like, including the shape of the earth, but there are huge advantages to streaming versus purchasing and maintaining a personal music library, when/if factors like music quality are held equal.

    In the old days, you bought the music you wanted to control, so you could curate your playlists and listen to what you want when you want.  You built a library of such music, at exhorbitant cost, at least those of us who didn't outright steal tracks from peer-to-peer [illegal] sharing sites.  To own and keep up-to-date a multiple thousand track library would cost thousands of dollars to build, and perhaps hundreds more per year to keep fresh as new music is released.

    Today, under the paid streaming model, at about $10/month, you can have access to 40 million tracks as your personal library, from which you can build playlists and access any time from anywhere.  $10/month, $120/year, for the rest of your life, might come to only a fraction of what it would have cost in the past to initially build a 6000 track library.  Ultra convenience at far lower cost to have a lifetime of constantly refreshed music and easily created playlists, curated stations, commentary, etc.  

    Yeah, it’s the future, until something better comes along.

    That's true, I probably bought $800 of music in 1985 alone! (that's $1800 in 2018 money). People don't realize how much buying physical media was.

    In my whole life (first bought vinyl in 1977), I probably spent the equivalent of $50000 in physical content in 2018 money (DVD, CD's Casettes, Vinyls) and at one time owned 2500 CD's, (200-300 Vinyl long plays (mostly dance tracks)) and 500 DVD's/BlueRays, which I have all digitized (still kept the DVD and CD boxes of my favorite albums and DVDs)..

    I was so expensive that I actually got many songs I could not afford to buy by taping American Top forty and other shows like this that had predictable ordering of songs. Quality wasn't the best but still OK. When I truly loved something I went and spend the $10-$12 bucks to buy the albums. Singles were so ridiculously high that it was often not worth it to buy it. That's why Album sales exploded in the 1980s.

    So, people complaining about spending $120 a year to get unlimited content is a bit absurd in my book.



    edited April 2018 tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 28
    Congratulations Apple Music! Me and my daughter loves Apple Music! We have been subscribers since day 1!
    lostkiwiwatto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 28
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    lkrupp said:
    asdasd said:
    I think that Apple are restricted from doing this but I bet reducing to $5 a month would attract 5-10 times as many people. There are certain prices that seem essentially “free” to consumers. $10 doesn’t. $5 does. 
    Who says? You? And it’s the same tired argument about market bottom fishing. Sell a lot for a little but nobody ever made money doing it. The smartphone market should tell you that. Having a lot of subscribers does you no good unless you make money doing it and Spotify isn’t exactly swimming in dough are they. I’d rather do business with a profitable company who I know will be around for awhile. Cheaptards are hilarious.
    Not me, economic theory. And plenty of economic data too, since you can't always trust Econ 101.

    The smart phone market is not the same as services. There is no going down market or harming the brand with services, you can provide the same service for $5 as for $10. The question is whether you gain more revenue or not. And to save you from a headache as you work out the math on this, if they can get more than twice the subscribers they will get more revenue. Have four times as many subscribers - then you get twice as much revenue. And so on. If you need help with the rest, I am here to help.

    With 1.3bn people with iOS devices ( probably an addressable market of 500-600M individuals) then Apple can grow that market. Costs don't scale the same as revenue although there will be some costs to scale of course. I personally think Apple would like all their users on all their devices to use some services, and its a clear growth area, even if devices stall. 

    You continue to be the least interesting poster on here. Everything you say is an automatic defence of Apple, or what you perceive to be Apple's philosophy - an opposition to cheapness. Which isn't true at all of services, and isn't really true of devices either where they can get away with it. See the iPod shuffle. 
  • Reply 28 of 28
    WingManWingMan Posts: 6member
    clarker99 said:
    I was an iTunes match subcriber. I had 5-6k songs. But I had not purchased a new album since the last time I bought a CD. 5-6yrs. I lost track of new artists and didnt delve into older artisits catalogs bc I didnt want to spend the extra money. Sounds silly really bc I used to buy 2 or 3 CD’s a month. There was something about going to the store and buying the album that I reallly enjoyed. 

    Anyway, I took the 3month trial of Apple Music and I listened to more music than ever before. New and older stuff. I am constantly finding new music and older artists back catalogues which I never would have listened too (let alone purchased) had I stayed on Match. 

    I am now a paid subscriber and wish I had started sooner. It has renewed my love of music. 

    I am sure that I would be happy with Spotify but I am entrenched in the Apple eco-system and it just made sense for me.

    Anyone else have a similar excitement level when switching to a full on streaming service? I have really loved it. 
    Clarker - did you ever try spotfiy? I am pretty satisfied with the features & overall quality/price ratio - what advantages do you think iTunes has compared to Spotify?
    Regardless of your answer - yes, switching to full on streaming service made me listen to more music than ever. Alghoritms, finding new "diamonds", ease of creating playlists - those are the main factors that contributed to that I believe.
Sign In or Register to comment.