What would happen if Apple banned Spotify from all of its devices?
They might lose a couple of device sales, but probably not many. Apple has the ability. But do they have the nerve?
They'd be subject to anti competition legislation. It's something of a mystery to me that they aren't already, for the fact that the Music app comes prebundled with every iPhone. Doesn't it feel a bit like Internet Explorer being bundled with Windows and giving MS an unfair advantage over Netscape?
I'm an Apple Music subscriber, however, and I quite like it. But, I'm one of those weirdos who likes iTunes. I've been using iTunes since it ran on Mac OS 9. My whole history and collected music library, ratings, playlists, etc are in iTunes. It just makes sense to stay with iTunes, which now makes a music streaming service available. For me, it never made sense to even bother with Spotify because it was a complete foreign environment.
iOS is not an "open" platform and it does not have the benefit of being in a monopoly position. So while it might feel the same as IE over Netscape, it is most certainly is not. Microsoft tied IE into the system; there was no way to not use it. Furthermore, Apple Music does not come bundled with the system, it is a subscription service that users must opt-in to and pay for. The "Music" app, which is bundled with the system is a music player app, that also happens to act as the front-end for Apple Music.
I remember Apple Music being mocked HEAVILY on this very forum for "not having a chance" against Spotify. Apple proves the haters epically wrong yet again, and shows them to be small-minded idiots without a shred of foresight
So by your logic... Apple product users are haters and small minded idiots without a shred of foresight because more people use Windows over MacOS, Android over iOS, Alexa over Siri, etc...
I think the people that were doing the mocking were trolls and diehard Spotify users. Also a few folks here here seem to truly hate Eddie Cue so that also added to the AM mocking.
Spotify boasting about its user is not different than Google boasting about Android activations 8 years ago. Quantity not quality.
Spotify isn’t a quality service? Based on what?
Considering AM is the default music app on every iOS device it would be embarrassing for Apple if it didn’t take over Spotify.
Are such histrionics really necessary?
bshank: Dude...AppleInsider is fed and fueled on the histrionics of, uh, 'enthusiastic' fans of a few tech outfits but mostly of (and understandably so) those items bearing the Apple logo. Are you new around here?
I remember Apple Music being mocked HEAVILY on this very forum for "not having a chance" against Spotify. Apple proves the haters epically wrong yet again, and shows them to be small-minded idiots without a shred of foresight.
Why anyone would claim that I've no idea. With roughly 100 million iPhone owners in the US and Apple Music pre-installed on their phone front and center that means only about 20% have shown an interest at the moment, plenty of room to grow. I'm more surprised that Spotify continues to add paying subscribers as well as they do.
Referring to other members of the forum who had different opinions as small-minded idiots may be a bit overboard tho.
Spotify boasting about its user is not different than Google boasting about Android activations 8 years ago. Quantity not quality.
Spotify isn’t a quality service? Based on what?
Considering AM is the default music app on every iOS device it would be embarrassing for Apple if it didn’t take over Spotify.
Are such histrionics really necessary?
bshank: Dude...AppleInsider is fed and fueled on the histrionics of, uh, 'enthusiastic' fans of a few tech outfits but mostly of (and understandably so) those items bearing the Apple logo. Are you new around here?
DED is a hero to AI readers.
We live in a world where if someone tells the truth they're mocked.
… but… but… I thought Beats was a dumb acquisition, or they just bought them to sell cheap headphones? This almost makes it sound like a really smart move that was only tangentially about headphones…
Explain why Apple, maker of iTunes, needed Beats to start up a streaming music service.
It has been explained to you time and time again, but there seems to be something about the Beats acquisition that makes it hard for you to accept it.
To begin with, as it always has, your argument collapses at the first statement, because Apple didn't make iTunes; they bought it.
It started life as an app called Soundjam which Apple acquired along with its developers. And this is the typical MO for Apple: they don't buy companies to bolster their balance sheet; they buy them to acquire proven talent. And this is the same with Beats.
Apple knew it needed to get into the streaming space. Apple also knew that it was run by grey old men who really don't have a pulse on the music fan of today and tomorrow. They didn't need the headphones, but a billion a year in sales wouldn't exactly hurt.
And so just like Soundjam years before, Apple bought expertise, contacts and experience. They bought Iovine .
And if these figures are accurate then they made a smart decision.
I remember Apple Music being mocked HEAVILY on this very forum for "not having a chance" against Spotify. Apple proves the haters epically wrong yet again, and shows them to be small-minded idiots without a shred of foresight.
Why anyone would claim that I've no idea. With roughly 100 million iPhone owners in the US and Apple Music pre-installed on their phone front and center that means only about 20% have shown an interest at the moment, plenty of room to grow. I'm more surprised that Spotify continues to add paying subscribers as well as they do.
Yeah, a couple of things that should be considered here, before we all get carried away with that "Of course It's winning! It's preinstalled" nonsense.
To begin with, installing stuff on iOS is so frictionless that any advantage Apple has in preinstalling apps is pretty negligible.
Secondly, this report covers subscriber numbers in relation to the service, not what they're running on.
Given that both Spotify and Android are available on both iOS and Android, and that Android has a significantly installed user base than iOS, then I'm at a loss as to why Spotify is having trouble staying ahead. The 'preinstall' advantage does not exist on this much larger platform, so here again we have an example of Apple pulling in the numbers despite being at a significant disadvantage.
So the question is, why can't Spotify get more folk on Android engaging? You can talk about "the preinstalled" advantage, but Spotify comes preinstalled on many Android phones, and often comes with a free three month trial to boot. So where's the problem?
It could be that streaming music alone isn't a viable business model, especially when the artists on your service tolerate you, rather than working with you. It could be that they need to add engaging content to go with the music, or genuine tie-ins with the biggest artist.
It could also be that DED is right, and that for paid services, Android is a worthless proposition.
Oh, and folk buy phones for far more than just streaming music, and given that Apple's user base is still increasing in size, the 20% figure is not really a problem; I wouldn't expect to see more than 30% of Apple's users ever subscribing, not until they get their film productions into play.
I remember Apple Music being mocked HEAVILY on this very forum for "not having a chance" against Spotify. Apple proves the haters epically wrong yet again, and shows them to be small-minded idiots without a shred of foresight.
Why anyone would claim that I've no idea. With roughly 100 million iPhone owners in the US and Apple Music pre-installed on their phone front and center that means only about 20% have shown an interest at the moment, plenty of room to grow. I'm more surprised that Spotify continues to add paying subscribers as well as they do.
Yeah, a couple of things that should be considered here, before we all get carried away with that "Of course It's winning! It's preinstalled" nonsense.
To begin with, installing stuff on iOS is so frictionless that any advantage Apple has in preinstalling apps is pretty negligible.
Given that both Spotify and Android are available on both iOS and Android, and that Android has a significantly installed user base than iOS, then I'm at a loss as to why Spotify is having trouble staying ahead. The 'preinstall' advantage does not exist on this much larger platform, so here again we have an example of Apple pulling in the numbers despite being at a significant disadvantage.
So the question is, why can't Spotify get more folk on Android engaging? You can talk about "the preinstalled" advantage, but Spotify comes preinstalled on many Android phones...
Sony Experia is the only one I can find reference to having Spotify "preinstalled", but there could of course be a few others.
In any event you're selling short the significant advantage of services preinstalled. Apple Maps got more and faster traction from it, Explorer the same, Google Search and Google Photos ditto. Same with Apple Music, as evidence far less engagement on the Android version which AFAIK isn't preinstalled on any Android phones but available to any Android user who wants it, and we all know a lot of Android owners consider Apple smartphones and the services they offer aspirational.
If pre-installing platform services was not a competitive marketing advantage that could be proven he EU would have no basis for the fine they're about to level against Google for doing so with Android.
I think you know better.
Rayz2016 said:
Given that both Spotify and Android are available on both iOS and Android, and that Android has a significantly installed user base than iOS, then I'm at a loss as to why Spotify is having trouble staying ahead.
Android doesn't have a significantly higher user base in the US, and this report only has to do with the US numbers, not worldwide.
Spotify boasting about its user is not different than Google boasting about Android activations 8 years ago. Quantity not quality.
Spotify isn’t a quality service? Based on what?
Not sure about matrix077, but for me, it's just another platform for major music labels to control. Same as traditional pay-for-play radio. Then again, I don't subscribe to Apple Music either (I use iTunes Match). But as least Apple has other sources of income so that it doesn't have to give favour to major labels in order to make ends meet.
Spotify boasting about its user is not different than Google boasting about Android activations 8 years ago. Quantity not quality.
Spotify isn’t a quality service? Based on what?
Considering AM is the default music app on every iOS device it would be embarrassing for Apple if it didn’t take over Spotify.
I don’t want to speak for the OP but I don’t think he was comparing the services in question but the subscribers to those services. iPhone users being more willing to spend money, etc. I think it’s a fair point. Being cross platform isn’t all that great of an advantage when a high percentage of the folks on the other platforms don’t spend money.
If true then why did Apple go cross platform with their music?
Spotify boasting about its user is not different than Google boasting about Android activations 8 years ago. Quantity not quality.
Spotify isn’t a quality service? Based on what?
Considering AM is the default music app on every iOS device it would be embarrassing for Apple if it didn’t take over Spotify.
I don’t want to speak for the OP but I don’t think he was comparing the services in question but the subscribers to those services. iPhone users being more willing to spend money, etc. I think it’s a fair point. Being cross platform isn’t all that great of an advantage when a high percentage of the folks on the other platforms don’t spend money.
If true then why did Apple go cross platform with their music?
Apple did it to increase their bottom line. To make higher profits. The same reason they do anything. And everything.
The answer is always the same. They did it to increase total profits.
Spotify boasting about its user is not different than Google boasting about Android activations 8 years ago. Quantity not quality.
Spotify isn’t a quality service? Based on what?
Considering AM is the default music app on every iOS device it would be embarrassing for Apple if it didn’t take over Spotify.
I don’t want to speak for the OP but I don’t think he was comparing the services in question but the subscribers to those services. iPhone users being more willing to spend money, etc. I think it’s a fair point. Being cross platform isn’t all that great of an advantage when a high percentage of the folks on the other platforms don’t spend money.
If true then why did Apple go cross platform with their music?
Apple did it to increase their bottom line. To make higher profits. The same reason they do anything. And everything.
The answer is always the same. They did it to increase total profits.
According to the poster I replied to going cross platform isn't all that great. I appreciate your input but I wanted his/her answer.
… but… but… I thought Beats was a dumb acquisition, or they just bought them to sell cheap headphones? This almost makes it sound like a really smart move that was only tangentially about headphones…
Explain why Apple, maker of iTunes, needed Beats to start up a streaming music service.
I thought it was due to Beats human curation and the way you could listen to music based on a specific mood. However this was feature has yet to be implemented as to my knowledge.
I’ve extensively used and reviewed all the main streaming music services... so I can actually speak from experience.
Spotify is by far the best at curation, best GUI, ease of use, and connectivity. Tidal is by far the best sounding service with hifi streams and MQA - with the limited library they have. Apple Music is the default pre-installed app. In the pack with Pandora, Last FM, Rdio, Google Play, Rhapsody etc... functional, but shines at nothing.
Apple has the native integration on its devices (yet oddly enough Spotify Connect works better on them), so it’s no surprise that Apple is getting leverage from its platform in the US.
I am not talking about you in particular, since I take your word that you've reviewed the streaming services and I'm sure it informed your personal opinion. However, a lot of people mistake inertia for "better UI and curation".
Most people who started using Spotify when it was first available would probably be loth to move to another service and would feel that the learning curve for getting the best of the new offering (like Apple Music, for example) would be too steep, so they stick to Spotify.
I'm saying this from my personal experience in a similar manner, since Apple Music was the only streaming service available for me initially (apart from some local services) and once Prime Music was made available here, I found it very difficult to get into it and see what it had to offer.
Comments
iOS is not an "open" platform and it does not have the benefit of being in a monopoly position. So while it might feel the same as IE over Netscape, it is most certainly is not. Microsoft tied IE into the system; there was no way to not use it. Furthermore, Apple Music does not come bundled with the system, it is a subscription service that users must opt-in to and pay for. The "Music" app, which is bundled with the system is a music player app, that also happens to act as the front-end for Apple Music.
Referring to other members of the forum who had different opinions as small-minded idiots may be a bit overboard tho.
It has been explained to you time and time again, but there seems to be something about the Beats acquisition that makes it hard for you to accept it.
To begin with, as it always has, your argument collapses at the first statement, because Apple didn't make iTunes; they bought it.
It started life as an app called Soundjam which Apple acquired along with its developers. And this is the typical MO for Apple: they don't buy companies to bolster their balance sheet; they buy them to acquire proven talent. And this is the same with Beats.
Apple knew it needed to get into the streaming space.
Apple also knew that it was run by grey old men who really don't have a pulse on the music fan of today and tomorrow.
They didn't need the headphones, but a billion a year in sales wouldn't exactly hurt.
And so just like Soundjam years before, Apple bought expertise, contacts and experience. They bought Iovine .
And if these figures are accurate then they made a smart decision.
No one here believes that.
Yeah, a couple of things that should be considered here, before we all get carried away with that "Of course It's winning! It's preinstalled" nonsense.
To begin with, installing stuff on iOS is so frictionless that any advantage Apple has in preinstalling apps is pretty negligible.
Secondly, this report covers subscriber numbers in relation to the service, not what they're running on.
Given that both Spotify and Android are available on both iOS and Android, and that Android has a significantly installed user base than iOS, then I'm at a loss as to why Spotify is having trouble staying ahead. The 'preinstall' advantage does not exist on this much larger platform, so here again we have an example of Apple pulling in the numbers despite being at a significant disadvantage.
So the question is, why can't Spotify get more folk on Android engaging? You can talk about "the preinstalled" advantage, but Spotify comes preinstalled on many Android phones, and often comes with a free three month trial to boot. So where's the problem?
It could be that streaming music alone isn't a viable business model, especially when the artists on your service tolerate you, rather than working with you. It could be that they need to add engaging content to go with the music, or genuine tie-ins with the biggest artist.
It could also be that DED is right, and that for paid services, Android is a worthless proposition.
Oh, and folk buy phones for far more than just streaming music, and given that Apple's user base is still increasing in size, the 20% figure is not really a problem; I wouldn't expect to see more than 30% of Apple's users ever subscribing, not until they get their film productions into play.
In any event you're selling short the significant advantage of services preinstalled. Apple Maps got more and faster traction from it, Explorer the same, Google Search and Google Photos ditto. Same with Apple Music, as evidence far less engagement on the Android version which AFAIK isn't preinstalled on any Android phones but available to any Android user who wants it, and we all know a lot of Android owners consider Apple smartphones and the services they offer aspirational.
If pre-installing platform services was not a competitive marketing advantage that could be proven he EU would have no basis for the fine they're about to level against Google for doing so with Android.
I think you know better.
Android doesn't have a significantly higher user base in the US, and this report only has to do with the US numbers, not worldwide.
I am not talking about you in particular, since I take your word that you've reviewed the streaming services and I'm sure it informed your personal opinion. However, a lot of people mistake inertia for "better UI and curation".
Most people who started using Spotify when it was first available would probably be loth to move to another service and would feel that the learning curve for getting the best of the new offering (like Apple Music, for example) would be too steep, so they stick to Spotify.
I'm saying this from my personal experience in a similar manner, since Apple Music was the only streaming service available for me initially (apart from some local services) and once Prime Music was made available here, I found it very difficult to get into it and see what it had to offer.