Drake's Scorpion on Apple Music crushes Spotify in streaming

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 67
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,420member
    Shit ‘music’ for a generation out of touch with music as an art form.
    I suppose you want those damn kids to get off your lawn as well?
    steven n.StrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 67
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    ireland said:
    matrix077 said:

    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    ireland said:
    This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
    That's a baffling comment. 

    It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally. 

    There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
    I think Ireland's comment was spot on.

    I don't see anything baffling in it.

    Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?

    Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service? 

    Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
    Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.

    The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.

    Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base. 

    That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.

    What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.

    Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?

    These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
    It was corrections' point that baffled me.

    I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?

    Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake? 

    Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.

    The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.

    If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important?  I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.

    There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?



    Jesus, why is this brainless guy even here? 

    (I’m just asking an honest question. Don’t ban me.)
    That’s not an honest question. That’s a biased, projecting and rude question.
    You’re right. It’s rude. It’s still honest though since that’s what came to my mind. 

    His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many. 
    NO. My post boiled down to 'why is this 'record' relevant' especially when compared to Spotify from a service perspective? It's trying to get my head around it and I still can't.

    It had nothing to do with marketshare at all but in an attempt to understand things I explained what would make sense, which touched on marketshare - and simply because the article mentioned the subscriber proportions. Nothing more. I even gave a very simple example to highlight the point and still I can't see what I'm supposed to be seeing.


    While Drake is not to my taste, it is to many millions of other users on both Apple and Spotify. To that point, both set records for demand of the song. That is why: "this album"
    fastasleepSoliwatto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 67
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,694member
    steven n. said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    ireland said:
    matrix077 said:

    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    ireland said:
    This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
    That's a baffling comment. 

    It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally. 

    There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
    I think Ireland's comment was spot on.

    I don't see anything baffling in it.

    Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?

    Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service? 

    Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
    Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.

    The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.

    Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base. 

    That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.

    What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.

    Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?

    These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
    It was corrections' point that baffled me.

    I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?

    Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake? 

    Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.

    The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.

    If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important?  I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.

    There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?



    Jesus, why is this brainless guy even here? 

    (I’m just asking an honest question. Don’t ban me.)
    That’s not an honest question. That’s a biased, projecting and rude question.
    You’re right. It’s rude. It’s still honest though since that’s what came to my mind. 

    His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many. 
    NO. My post boiled down to 'why is this 'record' relevant' especially when compared to Spotify from a service perspective? It's trying to get my head around it and I still can't.

    It had nothing to do with marketshare at all but in an attempt to understand things I explained what would make sense, which touched on marketshare - and simply because the article mentioned the subscriber proportions. Nothing more. I even gave a very simple example to highlight the point and still I can't see what I'm supposed to be seeing.


    While Drake is not to my taste, it is to many millions of other users on both Apple and Spotify. To that point, both set records for demand of the song. That is why: "this album"
    Yes, I understand the 'record streaming' part. That's fine. What I don't understand is why it is even relevant, nor why Spotify is brought into it with comments on subscriber proportions.

    I don't see how one album in one snapshot is even remotely of interest to anyone but Drake.




  • Reply 44 of 67
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,420member
    avon b7 said:
    steven n. said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    ireland said:
    matrix077 said:

    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    ireland said:
    This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
    That's a baffling comment. 

    It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally. 

    There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
    I think Ireland's comment was spot on.

    I don't see anything baffling in it.

    Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?

    Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service? 

    Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
    Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.

    The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.

    Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base. 

    That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.

    What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.

    Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?

    These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
    It was corrections' point that baffled me.

    I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?

    Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake? 

    Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.

    The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.

    If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important?  I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.

    There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?



    Jesus, why is this brainless guy even here? 

    (I’m just asking an honest question. Don’t ban me.)
    That’s not an honest question. That’s a biased, projecting and rude question.
    You’re right. It’s rude. It’s still honest though since that’s what came to my mind. 

    His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many. 
    NO. My post boiled down to 'why is this 'record' relevant' especially when compared to Spotify from a service perspective? It's trying to get my head around it and I still can't.

    It had nothing to do with marketshare at all but in an attempt to understand things I explained what would make sense, which touched on marketshare - and simply because the article mentioned the subscriber proportions. Nothing more. I even gave a very simple example to highlight the point and still I can't see what I'm supposed to be seeing.


    While Drake is not to my taste, it is to many millions of other users on both Apple and Spotify. To that point, both set records for demand of the song. That is why: "this album"
    Yes, I understand the 'record streaming' part. That's fine. What I don't understand is why it is even relevant, nor why Spotify is brought into it with comments on subscriber proportions.

    I don't see how one album in one snapshot is even remotely of interest to anyone but Drake.
    Why are you even commenting on this, much less reading it then? It's a comparison of user engagement on two competing platforms using a record-breaking release for data. Do you have a better metric?
    tmayericthehalfbeeStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 45 of 67
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,420member
    ireland said:
    ireland said:
    This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
    That's a baffling comment. 

    It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally. 

    There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
    It’s not baffling at all. It’s just one more ‘Apple has the most of something’ Daniel Eran article. Like a delayed-PTSD from the ‘Apple is about to die’ days. We can stop it now. Apple isn’t going anywhere.

    Being number one at anything I should hope is not why any of us use Apple gear. Also, “quality” services going out of business? Is that why you want to shout about this number? Because were Apple in number two position with Drake streams you’d fear Apple Music may go out of business? Apple built the digital music industry with iPod and iTunes, and Apple Music is a music streaming service from this company which comes bundled on the home screen of every iOS device. We’re AM going out of business, considering the talent in the company, I’d be more concerned for Apple culture than the music service.

    The real story here is why were Apple so slow on the uptake when it came to offering a music streaming service in the first place (institutional pride?), and why is Spotify, this app from a tiny Swedish company considered a better app by a lot of people? And when will Apple give modern users a dedicated AM app on the Mac?

    Counting and even knowing the number of stones on a beach is boring. Appreciating the beauty of each one is another level.

    I’ll reiterate for you: Drake? More Drake streams? This is what it’s come to?
    This is just a typical DED article. Find some meaningless comparison to show Apple is the biggest or the best. It’s like that Horace Dediu Apple summit which is nothing more than a place for Apple fanboys to hear speakers talk about how nobody gets Apple. Not surprisingly DED will be speaking at one on August 16th in NYC. And it only costs $525 to attend. ;)

    https://ti.to/thetechnorati/apple-summit-nyc
    Looking forward to not buying a ticket to Rogifan's Apple Handwringing FUD Summit.
    tmayStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 46 of 67
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    ireland said:
    This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
    That's a baffling comment. 

    It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally. 

    There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
    I think Ireland's comment was spot on.

    I don't see anything baffling in it.

    Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?

    Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service? 

    Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
    Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.

    The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.

    Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base. 

    That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.

    What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.

    Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?

    These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
    It was corrections' point that baffled me.

    I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?

    Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake? 

    Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.

    The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.

    If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important?  I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.

    There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?


    You’re assuming everyone is listening the same amount.  A service with fewer subscribers that beats the larger service in a benchmark like this is likely to be due to that service being more engaging, and more engaged with its customers.  It suggests Apple Music subscribers are tuning in to Apple’s messaging, which means Apple has better marketing versus Spotify.  And that’s a significant implication for future growth of each service.  Stay tuned for updates on paying subscriber numbers; the above implications will surely play out there. 
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 47 of 67
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    avon b7 said:
    steven n. said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    ireland said:
    matrix077 said:

    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    ireland said:
    This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
    That's a baffling comment. 

    It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally. 

    There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
    I think Ireland's comment was spot on.

    I don't see anything baffling in it.

    Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?

    Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service? 

    Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
    Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.

    The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.

    Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base. 

    That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.

    What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.

    Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?

    These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
    It was corrections' point that baffled me.

    I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?

    Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake? 

    Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.

    The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.

    If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important?  I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.

    There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?



    Jesus, why is this brainless guy even here? 

    (I’m just asking an honest question. Don’t ban me.)
    That’s not an honest question. That’s a biased, projecting and rude question.
    You’re right. It’s rude. It’s still honest though since that’s what came to my mind. 

    His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many. 
    NO. My post boiled down to 'why is this 'record' relevant' especially when compared to Spotify from a service perspective? It's trying to get my head around it and I still can't.

    It had nothing to do with marketshare at all but in an attempt to understand things I explained what would make sense, which touched on marketshare - and simply because the article mentioned the subscriber proportions. Nothing more. I even gave a very simple example to highlight the point and still I can't see what I'm supposed to be seeing.


    While Drake is not to my taste, it is to many millions of other users on both Apple and Spotify. To that point, both set records for demand of the song. That is why: "this album"
    Yes, I understand the 'record streaming' part. That's fine. What I don't understand is why it is even relevant, nor why Spotify is brought into it with comments on subscriber proportions.

    I don't see how one album in one snapshot is even remotely of interest to anyone but Drake.




    It’s simple.  The smaller service attracted more listens to the exact same content.  That implies Apple, in this case, is doing far better at marketing.  And that’s what wins when multiple vendors are hawking the same wares.  Why this wasn’t a key point grokked throughout all the messages posted thus far is what I fail to understand.  
    fastasleepStrangeDayswatto_cobra
  • Reply 48 of 67
    ericthehalfbeeericthehalfbee Posts: 4,486member
    ireland said:
    ireland said:
    Wow, the fact Apple Music outperformed Spotify in streaming seems to have really struck a nerve.

    That would explain all the excuses people are coming up to try and downplay the significance of this.
    The fact that you have interpreted our reaction this way speaks volumes. There were a couple of terse comments on here about AM that were untrue, by those who spend their time on an Apple forum for God knows what reason.

    However, a few us such as myself genuinely meant what we said. If iOS had a larger market share than Android it honestly wouldn’t mean anything to me.

    That Apple has had more Drake streams than Spotify means little to me. Even if AM had 2X Spotify streams in total (for all artists), I wouldn’t care. I don’t use Apple products because their sales or user numbers are larger than the next guy. I use Apple’s products for design, reliability and support reasons. There were no nerves touched, just boring investor-related words read. I’m appalled you’d react this way. My comment was to lobby for more interesting threads on AI that were not either polical or investor. The software and the products and the design are what I care about!

    Always interesting to see who responds first. If you didn’t think you were one of the “trolls” I directed my comment at, why the need to respond?
    Are you ok?

    Absolutely. Apple Music beating Spotify in streaming is in no way upsetting to me. Can’t say the same for everyone else.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 49 of 67
    gumashowgumashow Posts: 70member
    I am not a prude. I have 10 and 11 year old sons and this is popular music. This Drake music is appalling. Offensive. Every other word is the N word. The F word. How can anyone use this as an example of anything? It’s disgusting. Let me explain, I’m a writer. When you have to use those words every sentence to make your point, you’re a weak storyteller who lacks ANY creativity. It’s lazy wrtitying and says nothing. Zero. Again, I’m not a downer but just cannot believe that this is somehow considered art, or a mainstream anything. I just pulled up Apple Music and it’s highlightedvand as the first thing that comes up. Sad. Truly sad — the state of music. As a parent, I’m offended by anyone, any company, anywhere, who highlights or points to this as something relevant. It’s trash. 
    radarthekatireland[Deleted User]
  • Reply 50 of 67
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    Listen to Drake’s I’m Upset
    then listen to Genesis’ That’s All

    This is what people are talking about when they decry the state of music these days.  
  • Reply 51 of 67
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,420member
    gumashow said:
    I am not a prude. I have 10 and 11 year old sons and this is popular music. This Drake music is appalling. Offensive. Every other word is the N word. The F word. How can anyone use this as an example of anything? It’s disgusting. Let me explain, I’m a writer. When you have to use those words every sentence to make your point, you’re a weak storyteller who lacks ANY creativity. It’s lazy wrtitying and says nothing. Zero. Again, I’m not a downer but just cannot believe that this is somehow considered art, or a mainstream anything. I just pulled up Apple Music and it’s highlightedvand as the first thing that comes up. Sad. Truly sad — the state of music. As a parent, I’m offended by anyone, any company, anywhere, who highlights or points to this as something relevant. It’s trash. 
    Listen to Drake’s I’m Upset
    then listen to Genesis’ That’s All

    This is what people are talking about when they decry the state of music these days.  
    I’ll take “Things old white guys say about music” for 800, Alex.
    radarthekatwatto_cobra
  • Reply 52 of 67
    steven n.steven n. Posts: 1,229member
    avon b7 said:
    steven n. said:

    Yes, I understand the 'record streaming' part. That's fine. What I don't understand is why it is even relevant, nor why Spotify is brought into it with comments on subscriber proportions.

    I don't see how one album in one snapshot is even remotely of interest to anyone but Drake.




    You seem to care a great deal. I simply don’t understand what is so mind numbingly difficult to understand about two competitors  product numbers and how this might relate to future/current health.
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 53 of 67
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    gumashow said:
    I am not a prude. I have 10 and 11 year old sons and this is popular music. This Drake music is appalling. Offensive. Every other word is the N word. The F word. How can anyone use this as an example of anything? It’s disgusting. Let me explain, I’m a writer. When you have to use those words every sentence to make your point, you’re a weak storyteller who lacks ANY creativity. It’s lazy wrtitying and says nothing. Zero. Again, I’m not a downer but just cannot believe that this is somehow considered art, or a mainstream anything. I just pulled up Apple Music and it’s highlightedvand as the first thing that comes up. Sad. Truly sad — the state of music. As a parent, I’m offended by anyone, any company, anywhere, who highlights or points to this as something relevant. It’s trash. 
    Listen to Drake’s I’m Upset
    then listen to Genesis’ That’s All

    This is what people are talking about when they decry the state of music these days.  
    I’ll take “Things old white guys say about music” for 800, Alex.
    Best comment!  Lol

    But it’s not just being old that dictates the comparison.  Read again gumashow’s comment. It’s about respect, about being a civilized person, not merely appealing to the lowest common denominator or an audience’s base instincts.  

    For the record, I’m 55, girlfriend is 32.  I suppose she’s old too, as she would switch off Drake in favor of Genesis, in this example. 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 54 of 67
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 6,420member
    gumashow said:
    I am not a prude. I have 10 and 11 year old sons and this is popular music. This Drake music is appalling. Offensive. Every other word is the N word. The F word. How can anyone use this as an example of anything? It’s disgusting. Let me explain, I’m a writer. When you have to use those words every sentence to make your point, you’re a weak storyteller who lacks ANY creativity. It’s lazy wrtitying and says nothing. Zero. Again, I’m not a downer but just cannot believe that this is somehow considered art, or a mainstream anything. I just pulled up Apple Music and it’s highlightedvand as the first thing that comes up. Sad. Truly sad — the state of music. As a parent, I’m offended by anyone, any company, anywhere, who highlights or points to this as something relevant. It’s trash. 
    Listen to Drake’s I’m Upset
    then listen to Genesis’ That’s All

    This is what people are talking about when they decry the state of music these days.  
    I’ll take “Things old white guys say about music” for 800, Alex.
    Best comment!  Lol

    But it’s not just being old that dictates the comparison.  Read again gumashow’s comment. It’s about respect, about being a civilized person, not merely appealing to the lowest common denominator or an audience’s base instincts.  

    For the record, I’m 55, girlfriend is 32.  I suppose she’s old too, as she would switch off Drake in favor of Genesis, in this example. 
    For the record, I guessed you were exactly 55 with the Genesis comment. 32yo women who listen to Genesis are an exceedingly rare bird, so congrats?

    But let’s be real. You want to go back to 2 Live Crew in the 90’s for a minute and come back to talk about Drake’s choice of language? I’m not a big Drake fan, but I do like a lot of his contemporaries, like A$AP Rocky and Kendrick Lamar. You know these people are producing number one albums, right? Drake has won almost 100 awards and has been nominated for nearly 500. Kendrick Lamar just won the Pulitzer for his music and he swears and drops the N word plenty. You know why you don’t get their language? They’re not speaking to you.

    Calling Drake uncivilized is pretty brazen. I’ll leave it at that. 

    You guys sound like the “What’s a Grimes” people in that thread. Or Jim Darymple reviewing Apple Music and complaining about too many hip hops in the new music sections when all he wants to listen to are the same 40 year old AC/DC albums he’s always listened to.
    edited July 2018
  • Reply 55 of 67
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,694member
    avon b7 said:
    steven n. said:
    avon b7 said:
    matrix077 said:
    ireland said:
    matrix077 said:

    avon b7 said:
    Rayz2016 said:
    avon b7 said:
    ireland said:
    This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
    That's a baffling comment. 

    It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally. 

    There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
    I think Ireland's comment was spot on.

    I don't see anything baffling in it.

    Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?

    Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service? 

    Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
    Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.

    The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.

    Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base. 

    That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.

    What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.

    Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?

    These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
    It was corrections' point that baffled me.

    I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?

    Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake? 

    Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.

    The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.

    If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important?  I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.

    There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?



    Jesus, why is this brainless guy even here? 

    (I’m just asking an honest question. Don’t ban me.)
    That’s not an honest question. That’s a biased, projecting and rude question.
    You’re right. It’s rude. It’s still honest though since that’s what came to my mind. 

    His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many. 
    NO. My post boiled down to 'why is this 'record' relevant' especially when compared to Spotify from a service perspective? It's trying to get my head around it and I still can't.

    It had nothing to do with marketshare at all but in an attempt to understand things I explained what would make sense, which touched on marketshare - and simply because the article mentioned the subscriber proportions. Nothing more. I even gave a very simple example to highlight the point and still I can't see what I'm supposed to be seeing.


    While Drake is not to my taste, it is to many millions of other users on both Apple and Spotify. To that point, both set records for demand of the song. That is why: "this album"
    Yes, I understand the 'record streaming' part. That's fine. What I don't understand is why it is even relevant, nor why Spotify is brought into it with comments on subscriber proportions.

    I don't see how one album in one snapshot is even remotely of interest to anyone but Drake.
    Why are you even commenting on this, much less reading it then? It's a comparison of user engagement on two competing platforms using a record-breaking release for data. Do you have a better metric?
    Yes. I mentioned various in this thread.

    This is one record in one tiny snapshot. It isn't a valid metric. It doesn't measure 'user engagement' between platforms and in this case it was heavily promoted on one of the platforms.

    The only thing it measures is how many people listened to the record in a specific timeframe on both platforms and is pointless. There is nothing to gather from that data as it literally means nothing from a service perspective. 

    Good for Drake but that's it.


    edited July 2018
  • Reply 56 of 67
    SezwhutSezwhut Posts: 12member
    Uh, I think this just means that Apple Music users like Drake more than Spotify users. Anything else is speculation.
    ireland
  • Reply 57 of 67
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,843moderator
    gumashow said:
    I am not a prude. I have 10 and 11 year old sons and this is popular music. This Drake music is appalling. Offensive. Every other word is the N word. The F word. How can anyone use this as an example of anything? It’s disgusting. Let me explain, I’m a writer. When you have to use those words every sentence to make your point, you’re a weak storyteller who lacks ANY creativity. It’s lazy wrtitying and says nothing. Zero. Again, I’m not a downer but just cannot believe that this is somehow considered art, or a mainstream anything. I just pulled up Apple Music and it’s highlightedvand as the first thing that comes up. Sad. Truly sad — the state of music. As a parent, I’m offended by anyone, any company, anywhere, who highlights or points to this as something relevant. It’s trash. 
    Listen to Drake’s I’m Upset
    then listen to Genesis’ That’s All

    This is what people are talking about when they decry the state of music these days.  
    I’ll take “Things old white guys say about music” for 800, Alex.
    Best comment!  Lol

    But it’s not just being old that dictates the comparison.  Read again gumashow’s comment. It’s about respect, about being a civilized person, not merely appealing to the lowest common denominator or an audience’s base instincts.  

    For the record, I’m 55, girlfriend is 32.  I suppose she’s old too, as she would switch off Drake in favor of Genesis, in this example. 
    For the record, I guessed you were exactly 55 with the Genesis comment. 32yo women who listen to Genesis are an exceedingly rare bird, so congrats?

    But let’s be real. You want to go back to 2 Live Crew in the 90’s for a minute and come back to talk about Drake’s choice of language? I’m not a big Drake fan, but I do like a lot of his contemporaries, like A$AP Rocky and Kendrick Lamar. You know these people are producing number one albums, right? Drake has won almost 100 awards and has been nominated for nearly 500. Kendrick Lamar just won the Pulitzer for his music and he swears and drops the N word plenty. You know why you don’t get their language? They’re not speaking to you.

    Calling Drake uncivilized is pretty brazen. I’ll leave it at that. 

    You guys sound like the “What’s a Grimes” people in that thread. Or Jim Darymple reviewing Apple Music and complaining about too many hip hops in the new music sections when all he wants to listen to are the same 40 year old AC/DC albums he’s always listened to.
    For the most part, I’d leave the 90s out of it.  Not a great decade.
  • Reply 58 of 67
    bestkeptsecretbestkeptsecret Posts: 4,265member
    ireland said:
    ireland said:
    Wow, the fact Apple Music outperformed Spotify in streaming seems to have really struck a nerve.

    That would explain all the excuses people are coming up to try and downplay the significance of this.
    The fact that you have interpreted our reaction this way speaks volumes. There were a couple of terse comments on here about AM that were untrue, by those who spend their time on an Apple forum for God knows what reason.

    However, a few us such as myself genuinely meant what we said. If iOS had a larger market share than Android it honestly wouldn’t mean anything to me.

    That Apple has had more Drake streams than Spotify means little to me. Even if AM had 2X Spotify streams in total (for all artists), I wouldn’t care. I don’t use Apple products because their sales or user numbers are larger than the next guy. I use Apple’s products for design, reliability and support reasons. There were no nerves touched, just boring investor-related words read. I’m appalled you’d react this way. My comment was to lobby for more interesting threads on AI that were not either polical or investor. The software and the products and the design are what I care about!

    Always interesting to see who responds first. If you didn’t think you were one of the “trolls” I directed my comment at, why the need to respond?
    Are you ok?

    Absolutely. Apple Music beating Spotify in streaming is in no way upsetting to me. Can’t say the same for everyone else.


    @Ireland has spent quite a lot of time posting here when all he is interested in is the software, design and product.

    Some people do not understand that the world doesn't begin and end with them. Just because an article doesn't seem worth his time, he feels everyone else is wasting their time reading this.

    Looks like he has a specific axe to grind against DED.

    edited July 2018 tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 59 of 67
    irelandireland Posts: 17,798member
    gumashow said:
    I am not a prude. I have 10 and 11 year old sons and this is popular music. This Drake music is appalling. Offensive. Every other word is the N word. The F word. How can anyone use this as an example of anything? It’s disgusting. Let me explain, I’m a writer. When you have to use those words every sentence to make your point, you’re a weak storyteller who lacks ANY creativity. It’s lazy wrtitying and says nothing. Zero. Again, I’m not a downer but just cannot believe that this is somehow considered art, or a mainstream anything. I just pulled up Apple Music and it’s highlightedvand as the first thing that comes up. Sad. Truly sad — the state of music. As a parent, I’m offended by anyone, any company, anywhere, who highlights or points to this as something relevant. It’s trash. 
    Don’t you get it. This comment makes you a spy for Spotify and a Daniela Eran hater. You couldn’t possibly say anything like that without deep hate for Apple in your heart.

    Yes, I kid ☺️
    gumashow
  • Reply 60 of 67
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 7,694member
    steven n. said:
    avon b7 said:
    steven n. said:

    Yes, I understand the 'record streaming' part. That's fine. What I don't understand is why it is even relevant, nor why Spotify is brought into it with comments on subscriber proportions.

    I don't see how one album in one snapshot is even remotely of interest to anyone but Drake.




    You seem to care a great deal. I simply don’t understand what is so mind numbingly difficult to understand about two competitors  product numbers and how this might relate to future/current health.
    What product numbers? None have been given. As I said above, one artist's data is irrelevant and doesn't constitute product numbers but simply Drake numbers.

    Also, as I said before, is it outlandish to think that those subscribers (on both platforms) who weren't streaming Drake, were just streaming something else? Surely what counts - from a platform perspective - is total streams, not if some of your subscribers happen to be listening to the same record at the same time. Beyond simply adding up streams there is nothing interesting here except for Drake (and breaking a streaming record) and no one has been able to offer anything as a way of an argument to support how this is relevant from a platform perspective.

    What counts is subscribers, then active subscribers. Subscriber numbers are important but if they are paying but not using the service you have a problem because at some point they could cancel the subscription. Active subscribers are better as they probably have a reason to keep subscribing and actively using the service.

    Apple wants more subscribers. Spotify wants more subscribers. Why wouldn't they?

    What those subscribers listen too at any given time is moot unless some streams report more profit than others (but do they and what are the details). We don't know. What we know is that individual artist stream tallies are not representative of very much at all.

    And we know that Drake won't be releasing something every week which makes the whole thing even more pointless.


Sign In or Register to comment.