True or not, it certainly is one explanation for the pig that is itunes radio. It would be nice if apple could roll out something to keep Spotify on its toes, although that will not be easy.
These sources are full of it, and I'll tell you why: There are so many examples of information that contradict buzzfeed.
iTunes Radio was never designed to be a Spotify killer, Spotify have an incredibly difficult business model and are still struggling to sign on popular acts including the likes of Beyonce and Coldplay. Indeed "uncool" Apple launched Beyonce's latest album exclusively, setting a new record for most albums sold, going number one, over night, in more than 100 countries.
Next up, Coldplay, still not available on Spotify, but was offered before launch for listeners through iTunes Radio "First Play". Think about that, users got to listen to it for free, and Spotify can't even get the album on paid-terms.
Or let's go back a little further, with mega act Lady GaGa performing her entire album, before launch, at iTunes Festival, again streamed around the world for free. (Along with Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake and other huge acts.)
This isn't a company that has lost anything.
Well how about Pandora? Since the launch of iTunes Radio, Pandora have been in subscriber decline. Indeed iTunes Radio and Pandora are too similar for Pandora to survive without reinvention. Notably, it's not a coincidence that the music industry is holding out on both. (Perhaps Iovine & Dre can help get iTunes Radio launched in more countries.)
Looking at this, the Beats acquisition makes sense, why build another music product when there is already a relationship with someone who has already gone through the licensing hurdles.
I'd like to think that even Tim Cook knows what Spotify is and if not then Eddy Cue & Team. To suggest that Apple management was unaware of the LIMITED competition out there in the streaming music market is like iCloud Team not knowing what BOX and Dropbox is.
I find nothing mediocre about iTunes Radio. And at $25 a year for commercial free music, its a deal that nobody can beat. Spotify, Pandora both want that every month. This report is mediocre and doesn't really hold water. iTunes radio has already surpassed Spotify by miles. So I don't know what the whining is about but its unfounded and not true. The beats deal could bring more variety of music but I think iTunes Radio is just fine as it is.
Not according to our sources. We've been told that the East-end-of-4th-Street hooker, Susan Feltersnatch, rates SolipX as an A-#1 trick. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
This article sounds like a whole bunch of FUD and bullshit. "Middle-managers"? Check. Un-named "sources"? Check. There may be a grain of truth in this, sensationalize to a ridiculous degree and peppered with even more bullshit.
This is not surprising, and not really a valid comparison. Spotify is primarily a paid service (they do have Spotify radio now, but that's not their primary business model). iTunes Radio is peddled as a free service, with Apple's revenues coming from Ads and them linking directly to their own music store.
So, if a free service surpasses a paid service in number of users, it's not really alarming news. The point being made is that iTunes radio has a user base that is way behind Pandora, which is also a non-subscription streaming service. And it's barely ahead of a paid subscription service like Spotify which brings in $10 per user per month.
This is not surprising, and not really a valid comparison. Spotify is primarily a paid service (they do have Spotify radio now, but that's not their primary business model). iTunes Radio is peddled as a free service, with Apple's revenues coming from Ads and them linking directly to their own music store.
So, if a free service surpasses a paid service in number of users, it's not really alarming news. The point being made is that iTunes radio has a user base that is way behind Pandora, which is also a non-subscription streaming service. And it's barely ahead of a paid subscription service like Spotify which brings in $10 per user per month.
Spotify has 4x as many free subscribers versus paid subscribers. I've used Spotify for years and do not pay for it, so it's very much a free service. Just like iTunes Match, you can pay to remove ads, but that's about where the similarities end.
Perhaps the fact that ITunes Radio, which didn't play properly for me for the first six months (always skipped and stuttered even when on Fios), never plays anything I want to hear provoked this deal.
When you "shuffle" in itunes it's bad enough. You hear the same songs very often and over and over on a 10k library. It's a joke among those I know. Their algorithm for "random" isn't random, and if you hit 'play favorites more often' you don't hear any favorites. It's been broken for years.
The fact that they collect my music catalog, with ratings, and can't find a song I would like on iTunes Radio is literally the most monumental oversight in digital history. Besides I.P. Theft of course.
While were at it, let's talk about their algorithm for shuffling or randomly picking pictures for a screen saver from aperture...
Spotify has 4x as many free subscribers versus paid subscribers. I've used Spotify for years and do not pay for it, so it's very much a free service. Just like iTunes Match, you can pay to remove ads, but that's about where the similarities end.
I too pay for iTunes Match.
The similarities end when you click the "o.k. I agree" button so Apple can get your song data and not play a single song you want to hear. Even if you've five stared 10,000 songs you won't hear one.
I like the privacy stuff, however I did hit the "I agree button" for genius to read my songs. It's a waste. There's apparently two things at Apple that are not communicating with each other, at least on the iTunes Radio, and itunes front.
I want to hear what everyone else is five staring in their library. Isn't that what we agreed to?
Eddy? You there?
It also gets pretty sick when you plug in your iPhone and it takes 45 minutes to sync your iPhone over a USB 3 connection because it's syncing "genius data". When you look at it in itunes it looks like your syncing your entire library, only with no benefit.
I say USB 3 because there's no way to plug one into a thunderbolt port directly.
This "former employee" and I disagree. I used to use Pandora, and it was fine, but I much prefer the 'curation' of the Apple Radio stream, and it's integration into iTunes. I listen to Apple Radio all of the time- my only concern is, how the heck do they make a buck off of it. I do see it as a precursor (in house training or experiment) to Beats, which I hope will come on line, but not at the expense of the current Apple Radio.
This "former employee" and I disagree. I used to use Pandora, and it was fine, but I much prefer the 'curation' of the Apple Radio stream, and it's integration into iTunes. I listen to Apple Radio all of the time- my only concern is, how the heck do they make a buck off of it. I do see it as a precursor (in house training or experiment) to Beats, which I hope will come on line, but not at the expense of the current Apple Radio.
It works like a gym. They make a Buck off of it because most who pay for iTunes Match don't use it. Mostly because it's useless,
Kind of like having 9million developers, and one million apps... I'm amazed they would announce such a thing.
They make a Buck off of it because most who pay for iTunes Match don't use it. Mostly because it's useless,
What?! iTunes Match is far from useless. It's saved me from having to buy the largest capacity iPhone and then having to determine which songs I want to keep local or worry about doing a local sync to get any music I've loaded into iTunes on my iPhone.
It works like a gym. They make a Buck off of it because most who pay for iTunes Match don't use it. Mostly because it's useless,
Kind of like having 9million developers, and one million apps... I'm amazed they would announce such a thing.
How the **** is having your entire music library in the cloud and playable/downloadable from any apple device "useless"? Its damn useful to me. $25/yr is peanuts.
Also, are you implying that having 1.2 million apps and 9 million developers is somehow embarrassing? You do realize that it takes more than 1 developer to develop most apps, right? Or maybe you don't, and you're imaging 8 million developers doing nothing and 1 million developers making an app each? Amazing insight you have there.
This is exactly why I didn't understand the uproar and confusion over the Beats deal.
Spotify allows their entire library for free outside small devices. That is a big entryway.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, Spotify has EXPLICITLY co-opted the role of iTunes. The Spotify client lives and dies by its ability to replace iTunes as a home for music and a destination for general audio consumption.
How the **** is having your entire music library in the cloud and playable/downloadable from any apple device "useless"? Its damn useful to me. $25/yr is peanuts.
Also, are you implying that having 1.2 million apps and 9 million developers is somehow embarrassing? You do realize that it takes more than 1 developer to develop most apps, right? Or maybe you don't, and you're imaging 8 million developers doing nothing and 1 million developers making an app each? Amazing insight you have there.
I think you missed something... I have iTunes Match also.
I have a 128Gig iPad and 64Gig iPhone 5s. I can actually fit my entire "music" and I do stress music library on each. So using the cloud to listen to my music is basically worthless. Don't argue, Apple bred this situation. It's useless to me, and from the very, very, very many people I know who own iDevices that would need that function, they didn't sign up.
So you're saying it takes 9 developers to make an app? I can show you a flashlight app made by a publisher who posts articles on this very site. Think it took nine people?
Most people, I would say eight out of nine, were signing up for developer accounts to try the newest betas. Do you seriously disagree? If you do I'll point you to a site where it costs $49.99 to get the latest beta....
I'm curious if they'll tout developer numbers next year after they lost 1 million purchasers to the beta program.
Comments
True or not, it certainly is one explanation for the pig that is itunes radio. It would be nice if apple could roll out something to keep Spotify on its toes, although that will not be easy.
Wait, does the "true¡" mean he's not?
iTunes Radio was never designed to be a Spotify killer, Spotify have an incredibly difficult business model and are still struggling to sign on popular acts including the likes of Beyonce and Coldplay. Indeed "uncool" Apple launched Beyonce's latest album exclusively, setting a new record for most albums sold, going number one, over night, in more than 100 countries.
Next up, Coldplay, still not available on Spotify, but was offered before launch for listeners through iTunes Radio "First Play". Think about that, users got to listen to it for free, and Spotify can't even get the album on paid-terms.
Or let's go back a little further, with mega act Lady GaGa performing her entire album, before launch, at iTunes Festival, again streamed around the world for free. (Along with Katy Perry, Justin Timberlake and other huge acts.)
This isn't a company that has lost anything.
Well how about Pandora? Since the launch of iTunes Radio, Pandora have been in subscriber decline. Indeed iTunes Radio and Pandora are too similar for Pandora to survive without reinvention. Notably, it's not a coincidence that the music industry is holding out on both. (Perhaps Iovine & Dre can help get iTunes Radio launched in more countries.)
Looking at this, the Beats acquisition makes sense, why build another music product when there is already a relationship with someone who has already gone through the licensing hurdles.
I find nothing mediocre about iTunes Radio. And at $25 a year for commercial free music, its a deal that nobody can beat. Spotify, Pandora both want that every month. This report is mediocre and doesn't really hold water. iTunes radio has already surpassed Spotify by miles. So I don't know what the whining is about but its unfounded and not true. The beats deal could bring more variety of music but I think iTunes Radio is just fine as it is.
Wait, does the "true¡" mean he's not?
Not according to our sources. We've been told that the East-end-of-4th-Street hooker, Susan Feltersnatch, rates SolipX as an A-#1 trick.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Now back to our program...
This article sounds like a whole bunch of FUD and bullshit. "Middle-managers"? Check. Un-named "sources"? Check. There may be a grain of truth in this, sensationalize to a ridiculous degree and peppered with even more bullshit.
But then there's this:
iTunes Radio Surpasses Spotify to Take Third Place Among U.S. Music Streaming Services
This is not surprising, and not really a valid comparison. Spotify is primarily a paid service (they do have Spotify radio now, but that's not their primary business model). iTunes Radio is peddled as a free service, with Apple's revenues coming from Ads and them linking directly to their own music store.
So, if a free service surpasses a paid service in number of users, it's not really alarming news. The point being made is that iTunes radio has a user base that is way behind Pandora, which is also a non-subscription streaming service. And it's barely ahead of a paid subscription service like Spotify which brings in $10 per user per month.
Spotify has 4x as many free subscribers versus paid subscribers. I've used Spotify for years and do not pay for it, so it's very much a free service. Just like iTunes Match, you can pay to remove ads, but that's about where the similarities end.
When you "shuffle" in itunes it's bad enough. You hear the same songs very often and over and over on a 10k library. It's a joke among those I know. Their algorithm for "random" isn't random, and if you hit 'play favorites more often' you don't hear any favorites. It's been broken for years.
The fact that they collect my music catalog, with ratings, and can't find a song I would like on iTunes Radio is literally the most monumental oversight in digital history. Besides I.P. Theft of course.
While were at it, let's talk about their algorithm for shuffling or randomly picking pictures for a screen saver from aperture...
I too pay for iTunes Match.
The similarities end when you click the "o.k. I agree" button so Apple can get your song data and not play a single song you want to hear. Even if you've five stared 10,000 songs you won't hear one.
I like the privacy stuff, however I did hit the "I agree button" for genius to read my songs. It's a waste. There's apparently two things at Apple that are not communicating with each other, at least on the iTunes Radio, and itunes front.
I want to hear what everyone else is five staring in their library. Isn't that what we agreed to?
Eddy? You there?
It also gets pretty sick when you plug in your iPhone and it takes 45 minutes to sync your iPhone over a USB 3 connection because it's syncing "genius data". When you look at it in itunes it looks like your syncing your entire library, only with no benefit.
I say USB 3 because there's no way to plug one into a thunderbolt port directly.
It works like a gym. They make a Buck off of it because most who pay for iTunes Match don't use it. Mostly because it's useless,
Kind of like having 9million developers, and one million apps... I'm amazed they would announce such a thing.
What?! iTunes Match is far from useless. It's saved me from having to buy the largest capacity iPhone and then having to determine which songs I want to keep local or worry about doing a local sync to get any music I've loaded into iTunes on my iPhone.
How the **** is having your entire music library in the cloud and playable/downloadable from any apple device "useless"? Its damn useful to me. $25/yr is peanuts.
Also, are you implying that having 1.2 million apps and 9 million developers is somehow embarrassing? You do realize that it takes more than 1 developer to develop most apps, right? Or maybe you don't, and you're imaging 8 million developers doing nothing and 1 million developers making an app each? Amazing insight you have there.
Spotify allows their entire library for free outside small devices. That is a big entryway.
Secondly, and perhaps more significantly, Spotify has EXPLICITLY co-opted the role of iTunes. The Spotify client lives and dies by its ability to replace iTunes as a home for music and a destination for general audio consumption.
I think you missed something... I have iTunes Match also.
I have a 128Gig iPad and 64Gig iPhone 5s. I can actually fit my entire "music" and I do stress music library on each. So using the cloud to listen to my music is basically worthless. Don't argue, Apple bred this situation. It's useless to me, and from the very, very, very many people I know who own iDevices that would need that function, they didn't sign up.
So you're saying it takes 9 developers to make an app? I can show you a flashlight app made by a publisher who posts articles on this very site. Think it took nine people?
Most people, I would say eight out of nine, were signing up for developer accounts to try the newest betas. Do you seriously disagree? If you do I'll point you to a site where it costs $49.99 to get the latest beta....
I'm curious if they'll tout developer numbers next year after they lost 1 million purchasers to the beta program.