revenant wrote: »
i hope he is worth the money.
solipsismy wrote: »
I agree. This is all sounds like a classic Microsoftian move to get people to use an otherwise inferior service. I hope it's more than that, but if not, I doubt it will affect Apple's bottom line or affect the HW in any way so I'm pretty 'meh' on anything that happens with the Beats music service.
digitalclips wrote: »
I must admit I will be following along to see when the ROI occurs. Any guesses on if and when Apple may see that?
SpamSandwich wrote: »
Ever heard of the TV show "Shark Tank"? In business, a shark is a fearsome predator, someone you don't screw around with because they will destroy you.
pazuzu wrote: »
It all smells likes crony capitalism at its worst. No one is worth that much. He was Jobs' BFF for years.
rogifan wrote: »
I'm fine if it's exclusives for the right reasons (i.e.the platform is better). How about Iovine use his connections to get great artists to help curate iTunes (and any subscription music service Apple is working on). IMO album exclusives is easy when you have Iovine's connections and Apple's bank account. I hope Apple is working on something more interesting and unique than that.
tallest skil wrote: »
Well, there is a reason sharks haven’t meaningfully changed shape in several hundred million years.
solipsismy wrote: »
Personally, I think Apple could have resurrected the album sale for true collectors of music and created new album collectors had they put more effort into iTunes LP.
Is there really value in this method of exclusives in today's day? Is that really going to sell hardware? If it does, I doubt many people are going to decide to change their shopping patterns because its only on iTunes.
AC/DC partially went with Walmart because they initially didn't want digital distribution. And well, Walmart is everywhere. In the end, they ended up at least digital.
People really don't buy music anymore. It all seems to be about streaming. I guess like more like the old days - radio.
SpamSandwich wrote: »
Possibly, however digital music downloads favors hit singles (there is no incentive to buy additional songs one may not be familiar with), so we're really right back in the 50's where the hit single became the standard on the music charts.
solipsismy wrote: »
That's where the iTunes LP could have been brilliant. They could brought back the album art, use higher quality tracks (perhaps even lossless), exclusive album tracks, and videos, images, album notes, etc.
One thing I used to do when I bought a new album was read the notes cover to cover as I listened to it. If I could do the same thing but in a digital form — and without it being some separate PDF that feels out of place — it might have pushed me to start buying albums again.
SpamSandwich wrote: »
There's obviously some value to the idea, however the extra development costs for the digital LP all fall on the artists and labels. Those additional costs are evidently something they are unwilling to absorb in an incremental revenue business. Almost no one makes their money on the sale of music alone. Those music sales support touring, licensing and merchandise sales, where the real money is made.
mj web wrote: »
I remain skeptical of Beats, Dre, and Iovine, vis a vis a profitable or productive relationship with Apple short or long term.
addicted44 wrote: »
I didn't like the Beats acquisitionf let price aril because Beats was exactly what anti-Apple fanbois incorrectly derided Apple for being. A mediocre product successful only through marketing.
How ever, it seems to men hat the real fear should have been the acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, since I feel his way of doing business is completely antithetical to Appl's way (i.e. Through back room deals instead of creating mutually beneficial platforms and products).
clemynx wrote: »
The only problem Beats Music has is that you can't easily find top of the charts songs. That's not a problem to me at all, but to many people and mostly teenagers that's huge.
Apple needs someone. Apple just still doesn't get anything about cloud based media services. Exclusive content, often inexpensively made is a key advantage in this age of media commoditization. The reality with streaming is that most songs aren't worth $1.29 and most albums certainly aren't worth $12.99. You can have thousands of hours of video for $8-10 a month and trying to stand alone in a sea of sameness there won't get you a cent. Much like how Android is available to everyone, people won't go with a specific service unless there is something special for it. So Netflix has House of Cards and Orange is the new Black. This content doesn't keep a customer forever and much like the syndication they will eventually have to release it out there for others to bid on and show as well but it keeps them in the game and hands them extra money for now.
Who knows what keeps anyone in the game for the long term because the reality is that there are just too many things competing for eyeballs and earlobes. The cost is being driven down to near nil. SNL is making jokes about the podcast Serial for goodness sakes. When the cost to produce is practically nil, the returns are always large in terms of percentages but with so many more providers, the relationship and promotions have to go two ways. Apple will promote an artist because that artist is under contract to them in some regard exclusively or to provide some exclusivity. The artist will make less than they would have if they had hit alone but more than if they were an anonymous face in the crowd.
Branding has a purpose. Apple is a good brand and people pay for that brand. Beats is a good brand. Sure some audiophiles turn up their nose at it but the same class of techno nerd has been doing the same to Apple for ages as well. Beats offers a good all-around solution that people will recognize at a price that is premium to garbage headphones but at the same or cheaper price point than many "better" audio solutions.
Artists don't give a crap about software interfaces. Are you seriously suggesting someone go to a Nicki Minaj and tell her that she should avoid selling somewhere else because Apple has a more refined flattened interface on their music app? Why the hell would any artist give a crap about that? Likewise there would be discussion about which artists are even great artists, etc. Apple needs someone at the company who comes up with a better solution than one 50 year old white dude greeting a band of 50 year old white dudes who are giving away their album to the youth of American and the world who are increasingly not white and also could give a crap about 50 year old white dudes.
It's very cute that you worry about a format from 1948 that centered around being able to fit 40-ish minutes of music onto one album or 9-10 songs to be packaged and sold by one group or person.
Sadly it is 2014 and no one cares about 40-ish minutes of music from one artist when there are a million said artists begging for our ears and our eyeballs. Said million artists are also BEGGING us to stop listening to other artists so we can also find time to slot them in as well.
In this day and age digital doesn't favor anything. The difference between downloaded and entire album or a song over most internet connections is negligible. Apple declares a 5 mbit per second connection would download a single in 4-5 seconds. Most people have speeds double to triple that so split the difference and say the difference between downloading a song (2 seconds) and an album (20-25 seconds) is what.... 18 seconds?
Digital downloads favor nothing. The issue is time, eyeballs and ears and other competing artists. When you are listening to one, you aren't listening to another so the 80/20 principle applies. Most artists produce three maybe four high quality songs per album. Taking one of those high quality songs and having four people remix it provides some additional content for the album (Here is Bang, Bang remixed five different ways for Jessie J lovers.)
Why did you like the liner notes and photos in the LP back in the day? There was no Twitter, no Instagram, no other way to feel closer to an artist. So you'd read who they gave thanks too just so 13 year old you could try to gain some access to the type of person that made this music you love. Now you don't need to do that. You just follow them on Twitter and they'll tweet you a pic of their stocking on Christmas Day.
What product isn't mediocre by some standard nor successful via marketing by some standard. There isn't any brand you can name that people don't accuse of those two traits.