Apple's 'arrogance' wrought mediocre iTunes Radio and led to Beats buy, report says

123578

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 144
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Hoobitron View Post



    As much as I wanted iTunes Radio to be great, I still prefer Pandora. The music genome system it uses gives me exactly the kind of mix I'm looking for. Whatever algorithm iTunes uses just doesn't give me the mix I'm looking for. I really really wish they had purchased Pandora instead (don't know if that was ever an option). That would have ended all this right then and there. The music genome project is the key purchase there. It's genius, and Apple is supposed to be all about genius.

    this.  Pandora has hit on the 'virtual program manager' in the genome system that is magically crowdsourcing and narrowcasting at the same time.   

     

    But this...

     

    I don't think iTunes Radio was the problem Beats was designed to solve.   I think it's all at the other end of the supply chain (music label relationship management).  If you're spending 10's of billions a year 'paying for the right to delivery' music from the labels, spending 2.5B to improve 'cost of goods'  (If Iovine can save Apple a Billion a Year against projected costs...  Deal pays for itself before Iovine's options vest) is a good thing (TM).

  • Reply 82 of 144
    theothergeofftheothergeoff Posts: 2,081member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post





    To be Apple's biggest market, the demand in China only needs to be bigger than the US. Apple doesn't have to have the most marketshare there, and they won't ever.



    Do you know that Western luxury products are HIGHLY sought after by China's emerging wealthy and middle class? Everything from Audi to Cadillac, Gucci to Burberry. Have you seen the big flagship Apple Stores with long lines of Chinese consumers waiting for the next iPhone?

     

    Agree to the 2nd part.  on the first part, there is no reason not to think that Apple develops the same sales stratification that it's seeing in the US.  70-50% of the top 40% of the income brackets.   And that drives 'want' down into the petite bourgeois strata

  • Reply 83 of 144
    cowhidecowhide Posts: 49member
    iTunes radio is great I use it all the time. the song selection is really done by me because I checked "more like this" when I change it changes. who cares about the opinion of three ex-employees when millions of people choose iTunes radio.
  • Reply 84 of 144
    technotechno Posts: 735member

    ohhhh................... Apple is doomed. 

  • Reply 85 of 144
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by simtub View Post

    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 am convinced to "doers" at Apple itunes radio are very aware or competition, but I am also convinced the suits above them are completly clueless, and sadly they are the ones calling the shots. This will be consistent with what the article is reporting and the product that came out of it.

    I have seen this so many times in corporations.
  • Reply 86 of 144
    clemynxclemynx Posts: 1,536member
    "The management in particular were pretty much tone-deaf in what Spotify was and that's why they're panicking now," one person said. "They didn't understand how Spotify worked, which is why they thought iTunes Radio would be a Spotify killer."

    If this is even remotely true, the people who thought this were not only arrogant, but also stupid.

    And iTunes radio isn't even available for most European countries... unlike Spotify.
  • Reply 87 of 144
    jetlawjetlaw Posts: 156member
    "beats is known for their premium headphones..."

    No, actually there is pretty much consensus that they suck.
  • Reply 88 of 144
    paul94544paul94544 Posts: 1,027member
    The idea that Apple is "genius" is mostly hype. Steve drove the genius at Apple and tried to create a team that would continue that legacy. Trouble is over time this genius culture he tried to create will fade. Apple is a hardware company. Its revenue is generated mostly by iPhones. iPads and Macs. The software is used to tie it all together and is mostly free. (Iworks is free, MacOS/iOS is free) The services part is iTunes and Appstore. Obviously Apple is not genius at the services part except for the Apple store retail chain business. Cook is trying to leverage the ease of use and the WWDC was all about integration.This beats acquaistion is an attempt to boost iradio amongst other things. DON'T PANIC. The internet is really only commercially 10-15 years old, we are still at its very early days in its evolution. It is still shaking out Amazon/Google/MS/Netflix etc are all still jockeying for position. It will be fascinating to see who wins and who fades away.
  • Reply 89 of 144
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    So, [B]herbapou, ClemyNX[/B], you, along with [B]Rogifan[/B], are taking this joke of "news" story seriously?

    And [B]you[/B] want to be taken seriously? Have you looked at the original story on Buzzfeed?

    All unnamed "sources." It smells of being completely made up. How could you possibly be so naive to be suckered in by such trash?
  • Reply 90 of 144
    frxntierfrxntier Posts: 97member
    b9bot wrote: »
    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.
    Spotify is a completely different service to iTunes Radio. Spotify is to iTunes as Netflix is to your cable movie channel. Spotify is an on-demand music subscription service, with a catalogue that is almost as good as iTunes, it's worth paying for. By the way, Spotify also has 'radio stations', except you can add songs to playlists, sync them for offline use, and listen to them as much as you want. iTunes Radio is just a glorified radio station, like Pandora. One is not better than the other - they are different services for different needs. Spotify is worth paying $12 a month for to take my iTunes library on the road, and continue to add to it and listen to whatever I want, whenever I want.

    One thing I don't really get is why the two are being compared like they are. Of course iTunes Radio surpassed Spotify. iTunes Radio is free and it is installed on everyone's phone. But as the two are different types of services, it's like suggesting that more people watch free-to-air TV than use YouTube. Whether or not it's true is irrelevant, because the comparison doesn't make sense.

    Now that Apple owns Beats, they actually ARE competing with Spotify. iTunes Radio was and still is just another Pandora competitor.
  • Reply 91 of 144
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    herbapou wrote: »
    <div class="quote-container" data-huddler-embed="/t/180491/apples-arrogance-wrought-mediocre-itunes-radio-and-led-to-beats-buy-report-says#post_2546588" data-huddler-embed-placeholder="false"><span>Quote:</span><div class="quote-block">Originally Posted by <strong>simtub</strong> <a href="/t/180491/apples-arrogance-wrought-mediocre-itunes-radio-and-led-to-beats-buy-report-says#post_2546588"><img src="/img/forum/go_quote.gif" class="inlineimg" alt="View Post"/></a><br/><br/>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.</div></div><p> </p>
    I am convinced to "doers" at Apple itunes radio are very aware or competition, but I am also convinced the suits above them are completly clueless, and sadly they are the ones calling the shots. This will be consistent with what the article is reporting and the product that came out of it.

    I have seen this so many times in corporations.

    The leaders at Apple are "doers". They are highly involved. This ex employee probably worked in Retail.
  • Reply 92 of 144
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jetlaw View Post



    "beats is known for their premium headphones..."



    No, actually there is pretty much consensus that they suck.

    Beats headphones have improved a little, but I would not recommend them at all. If you want a good pair of headphones, buy some V-Moda's. 

  • Reply 93 of 144
    pigybankpigybank Posts: 178member
    I'm kind of surprised AppleInsider bothered posting this tabloid BS trash. At least provide your own rebuttal or commentary on this garbage if you're going to bother regurgitating in on here. iTunes radio is in 3rd place, ahead of Spotify, so some "former employee" doesn't know what the iFCK they're talking about.
  • Reply 94 of 144
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frxntier View Post





    Spotify is a completely different service to iTunes Radio. Spotify is to iTunes as Netflix is to your cable movie channel. Spotify is an on-demand music subscription service, with a catalogue that is almost as good as iTunes, it's worth paying for. By the way, Spotify also has 'radio stations', except you can add songs to playlists, sync them for offline use, and listen to them as much as you want. iTunes Radio is just a glorified radio station, like Pandora. One is not better than the other - they are different services for different needs. Spotify is worth paying $12 a month for to take my iTunes library on the road, and continue to add to it and listen to whatever I want, whenever I want.



    One thing I don't really get is why the two are being compared like they are. Of course iTunes Radio surpassed Spotify. iTunes Radio is free and it is installed on everyone's phone. But as the two are different types of services, it's like suggesting that more people watch free-to-air TV than use YouTube. Whether or not it's true is irrelevant, because the comparison doesn't make sense.



    Now that Apple owns Beats, they actually ARE competing with Spotify. iTunes Radio was and still is just another Pandora competitor.

     

    No it's not.

     

    iTunes match costs a lot less.

     

    The free Spotify does f**k all in Australia (and other countries).

     

    iTunes match works well, unless your library is full of crap you don't like which seems like a definition of insanity.

  • Reply 95 of 144
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    ...headphones, buy some V-Moda's. 


     

    Overpriced junk, like Skull Candy.

     

    Sennheiser only get good above $200.

     

    Beats have 72% of the over $100 headphone market, they are only considered junk by a small segment of, largely irrelevant, self important audiophiles.

  • Reply 96 of 144
    sporlosporlo Posts: 143member
    9secondko wrote: »
    Acquiring beats to go after a younger generation?

    Lol. The youth are into iTunes. Not Beats.

    Andre is pretty old. And lovine... Ain't young.

    I guess apple can fire back now with ethic diversity criticism.

    Beats didn't seem all that successful with half a million subscribers that they bought when they acquired MOG. and limited to the U.S. Esp in light of iTunes' 800 million and international base.

    Youth into iTunes? Not from my experience. I'm 20, I guess that's on the older end, but it seems iTunes is to streaming/on-demand what Facebook is to Twitter. Also note that Beats Music is BRAND NEW. iTunes is ancient. I still think the acquisition has more to do with the music service itself, and less to do with the brand name.
  • Reply 97 of 144
    frxntierfrxntier Posts: 97member
    hill60 wrote: »
    No it's not.

    iTunes match costs a lot less.

    The free Spotify does f**k all in Australia (and other countries).

    iTunes match works well, unless your library is full of crap you don't like which seems like a definition of insanity.
    I didn't once mention iTunes Match. I was talking about iTunes Radio. They are ALSO two different services.

    Why would you quote me, then argue against something I didn't even mention?
  • Reply 98 of 144
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by frxntier View Post





    I didn't once mention iTunes Match. I was talking about iTunes Radio. They are ALSO two different services.



    Why would you quote me, then argue against something I didn't even mention?

     

    iTunes match + iTunes Radio, ad free experience for less than a third of the cost of Spotify.

     

    So you haven't used the full experience.

     

    Then there are the settings you can use in iTunes radio to create stations.

     

    Identify a song with Shazam, open in iTr, create more by this artist or more like this.

     

    Maybe it works differently in different countries.

  • Reply 99 of 144
    frxntierfrxntier Posts: 97member
    hill60 wrote: »
    iTunes match + iTunes Radio, ad free experience for less than a third of the cost of Spotify.

    So you haven't used the full experience.

    Then there are the settings you can use in iTunes radio to create stations.

    Identify a song with Shazam, open in iTr, create more by this artist or more like this.

    Maybe it works differently in different countries.
    I understand what iTunes Match is. It doesn't matter what it costs. It's completely different to Spotify.

    With iTunes Match, I still have to own the song before I can listen to it. I still have to have an enormous music library. And what if I want to listen to an album immediately? I would have to buy it on iTunes.

    With Spotify, I can just type in the song, or any album, or browse any of my playlists and listen straight away.

    The 'full experience' assumes I have time and money to spend on a music library. Which I don't. It's cheaper to pay $12 a month than buy several $15 albums in a month. My Spotify library would cost thousands of dollars to purchase with iTunes. And iTunes Match is useful only if you have CDs or if you just pirate all your music. Or just to get rid of ads in iTunes Radio.
  • Reply 100 of 144
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by frxntier View Post





    I understand what iTunes Match is. It doesn't matter what it costs. It's completely different to Spotify.



    With iTunes Match, I still have to own the song before I can listen to it. I still have to have an enormous music library. And what if I want to listen to an album immediately? I would have to buy it on iTunes.



    With Spotify, I can just type in the song, or any album, or browse any of my playlists and listen straight away.



    The 'full experience' assumes I have time and money to spend on a music library. Which I don't. It's cheaper to pay $12 a month than buy several $15 albums in a month. My Spotify library would cost thousands of dollars to purchase with iTunes. And iTunes Match is useful only if you have CDs or if you just pirate all your music. Or just to get rid of ads in iTunes Radio.

     

    It's cheaper to buy iTunes match and upload torrented music if one so desired.

     

    Just like music from any source has been able to be imported into iTunes for over a decade.

     

    Can't search, hey.

     

     

     

Sign In or Register to comment.