What do people think AM and FM radio is? They play music with ad's and have been doing that for a very long time. Long before the internet even existed. People were doing copying songs right from the radio into a cassette tape before the internet existed, but now somehow streaming on the internet for free with ad's is different? How is it?. Or have the labels just gotten more greedy?
It's not. It's just that Apple wasn't allowed to offer a free with ads tier so now that means free with ads is bad and will be killed by Apple music. :rolleyes:
It's going to be interesting to see how all this parses out over time. Anyone thinking that Apple isn't going to impact the streaming music market really don't get it. Most of the other music services was almost relieved yet excited by Apple joining in. Why because Apple is a marketing machine and they know Apple will reach a dormant segment of the market and bring them in. There hope of course is that they won't stay with Apple, but once they get Apple Music they will perhaps end up on one of their services after the free 3 months subscription. Apple will be trying to keep those subscribers to pay the $10 or $15 for family plan.
Apple has been late to the game many times and that has not automatically meant they would fail.
Spotify right now really needs the ad revenue from their freemium plan, the problem is they don't pay as much to the labels with that tier and it is up for renewal soon enough. Not to mention that Spotify hasn't made one cent of profit and continues to bleed money and rely on investors. Apple has billions of cash and what is ironic is within a year you can almost bet Apple music will turn a profit, because that is what Apple is all about. Will Spotify last beyond it's current cash infusion and become profitable with the freemium tier. Some say not a chance! One thing for sure we'll see.
Also for those that say people getting free ad support music won't subscribe to Apple at $10 that may true for some, but that certainly isn't true for all. Apple will convert many of those freebie to paying customers and they will also get some of Spotify's premium subscribers to convert too.
We won't know how this is going to settle out for a year or so, but if I was holding a hand of cards right now. I darn sure would prefer to be holding Apple's hand.
I understood that a major bone of contention with Spotify on the back end was how little they were paying the smaller labels, even for hundreds of thousands of streams, which would yield royalty payments less than $20US sometimes. If that is true, Spotify would appear to be so beholden to the Big Four that they can't afford to pay out an equal rate to the smaller and indie labels. I wonder if Apple is going to pay the same rate for every streamed song regardless of who the rights holders are. This report doesn't seem to go into that detail, which is a pretty crucial one.
Alternatively, are tens of millions of people who don't currently subscribe to a music service suddenly going to chose to subscribe beacuse the integration is better! Dont think so, enough to recover the lost income from the switches maybe
Could also be due to availability. Apple Music will launch in 100 countries. Spotify does not have that coverage. I am waiting to subscribe to Apple Music. I think people in a lot of countries without access to Pandora or Spotify will jump on board.
If rumours are to be believed, Apple Music will be priced to suit the local markets. The rumoured price here in India is approximately $2 per month.
Apple is aiming very big with this. They even promised an Android version this Fall. It is short-sighted to think that losing income from the first 3 months is a deal-breaker for this from the artists' point of view.
the free versions are basically internet radio. You cant select specific songs you want to listen to or download them. HUGE difference.
Face it. Apple is going to destroy the ad based streaming service. Sorry Google.
I think its Apple's crusade to wreck ad-based companies. Soon iOS will have adblock which will destroy scummy companies to who rely on popup ads to make money.
Not even apple have this power. If as blocking becomes too popular, websites that rely on advertising to survive will simply block devices that have ad blocking enabled. Would not surprise me if they also lobby governments to change copyright laws to address adblocking. Making it illegal to view site without rendering it how they want it rendered. Governments are notorious for bending over backwards to help copyright holders.
Ad blocking will be allowed as long as it does not become too popular. It has been available on Android and on chrome browsers for a long time but not many use it.
This is an ignorant/selfish response. I notice non-artists have this "screw your career" attitude.
I see more artists and labels pulling out of the free tier model. In 10 years don't be surprised if these free services become empty.
No it isn't. It's a what you are offering doesn't suit me, I'll take my business elsewhere response. If I don't like the food in a restaurant, I don't eat there. If clothes cost too much at one store, I go to their cheaper competition.
Artists do not have a right to make a living performing their art. They have a right to try, and if they fail they fail, just like any other business. With so many artists earning a decent living, doesn't that tell you something about those who can't get by on their earnings? They are either not good enough, or have not had the break they need. But we do not owe them that break
There have always been 2 ways to listen to music......either you pay and have complete control over what you listen to, or you don't and have what you listen to picked by a DJ or an algorithm. Apple Music (and other paid services) will work because there will always be those of us that will pay for the privilege to listen to what we want when we want. We are their target audience, not those who never pay for music.
Well. It's pretty easy to get an internet label to represent you these days. Like imusiciandigital or reverbnation. For a small fee they'll publish your tracks and leave you with the majority of the cut.
No way in hell that happens. Block the iOS users who have the most $$$? LOL. Thats the bullshit some idiot analysis was spewing a few days ago. No way that happens. Ad block blocks the intrusive and obnoxious ads such as full screen popups, video and audio that plays automatically, and ads that block the article text. Bottom line is these websites need to use more discrete ads instead of the normal Google POS intrusive ads.
I have a large site that makes over $18000 a month by having targeted ads alongside my content. The only source of income on the site is the ads that are shown. I don't care how much money an iOS user has, if I can't render my ads I don't make money from them.
As for which ads are blocked, that depends on the ad blocker. Android have one that blocks all google ads. Most good ad blockers will give options to either display "White listed" ads, or block all ads that are not part of the actual page hosted at the site.
The type of ads you mention are the ads that most good ad blockers block by default.
When people choose to listen to music by streaming, they don't care about picking music or downloading. They don't care to pay $10 per month when they can listen for free. Apple hasn't changed the game because streaming music and subscription services have been around for YEARS before Apple decided to join in. Apple is late in the game, and buying Beats won't help them. You assume everyone has a family. The service is $10 per month. Many families still use the same Apple ID, so unlikely they would pay for a family pack. iTunes Radio was a joke, repeating the same songs or freezing altogether. It is about as popular as the failed Ping service. Not many people want to "rent" their music, so the subscription model isn't exactly a successful one. Even Apple can't fix that. I would never pay to rent music, and I have zero interest in paying $10 a month for streaming music when I can do it for free with Pandora or Spotify. Remember, when you stop paying, those fake 'downloads' stop working.
That's not their target audience. their target audience are those that don't mind paying for music. I am someone who buys music and this definitely appeals to me. I'd rather have access to 30 million songs than to keep paying for downloads.
Comments
It's not. It's just that Apple wasn't allowed to offer a free with ads tier so now that means free with ads is bad and will be killed by Apple music. :rolleyes:
It's going to be interesting to see how all this parses out over time. Anyone thinking that Apple isn't going to impact the streaming music market really don't get it. Most of the other music services was almost relieved yet excited by Apple joining in. Why because Apple is a marketing machine and they know Apple will reach a dormant segment of the market and bring them in. There hope of course is that they won't stay with Apple, but once they get Apple Music they will perhaps end up on one of their services after the free 3 months subscription. Apple will be trying to keep those subscribers to pay the $10 or $15 for family plan.
Apple has been late to the game many times and that has not automatically meant they would fail.
Spotify right now really needs the ad revenue from their freemium plan, the problem is they don't pay as much to the labels with that tier and it is up for renewal soon enough. Not to mention that Spotify hasn't made one cent of profit and continues to bleed money and rely on investors. Apple has billions of cash and what is ironic is within a year you can almost bet Apple music will turn a profit, because that is what Apple is all about. Will Spotify last beyond it's current cash infusion and become profitable with the freemium tier. Some say not a chance! One thing for sure we'll see.
Also for those that say people getting free ad support music won't subscribe to Apple at $10 that may true for some, but that certainly isn't true for all. Apple will convert many of those freebie to paying customers and they will also get some of Spotify's premium subscribers to convert too.
We won't know how this is going to settle out for a year or so, but if I was holding a hand of cards right now. I darn sure would prefer to be holding Apple's hand.
Alternatively, are tens of millions of people who don't currently subscribe to a music service suddenly going to chose to subscribe beacuse the integration is better! Dont think so, enough to recover the lost income from the switches maybe
Could also be due to availability. Apple Music will launch in 100 countries. Spotify does not have that coverage. I am waiting to subscribe to Apple Music. I think people in a lot of countries without access to Pandora or Spotify will jump on board.
If rumours are to be believed, Apple Music will be priced to suit the local markets. The rumoured price here in India is approximately $2 per month.
Apple is aiming very big with this. They even promised an Android version this Fall. It is short-sighted to think that losing income from the first 3 months is a deal-breaker for this from the artists' point of view.
the free versions are basically internet radio. You cant select specific songs you want to listen to or download them. HUGE difference.
Face it. Apple is going to destroy the ad based streaming service. Sorry Google.
I think its Apple's crusade to wreck ad-based companies. Soon iOS will have adblock which will destroy scummy companies to who rely on popup ads to make money.
Not even apple have this power. If as blocking becomes too popular, websites that rely on advertising to survive will simply block devices that have ad blocking enabled. Would not surprise me if they also lobby governments to change copyright laws to address adblocking. Making it illegal to view site without rendering it how they want it rendered. Governments are notorious for bending over backwards to help copyright holders.
Ad blocking will be allowed as long as it does not become too popular. It has been available on Android and on chrome browsers for a long time but not many use it.
This is an ignorant/selfish response. I notice non-artists have this "screw your career" attitude.
I see more artists and labels pulling out of the free tier model. In 10 years don't be surprised if these free services become empty.
No it isn't. It's a what you are offering doesn't suit me, I'll take my business elsewhere response. If I don't like the food in a restaurant, I don't eat there. If clothes cost too much at one store, I go to their cheaper competition.
Artists do not have a right to make a living performing their art. They have a right to try, and if they fail they fail, just like any other business. With so many artists earning a decent living, doesn't that tell you something about those who can't get by on their earnings? They are either not good enough, or have not had the break they need. But we do not owe them that break
Face it. Apple is going to destroy the ad based streaming service. Sorry Google.
Why would Google worry, Play music has no ads or subscription free model?
those 'free' services don't allow you to pick the specific songs or download.
If they do, they won't in a few months once the labels renegoiate the deals.
Apple has changed the game again.
And it isn't $10. Its $15 for a family of 6.
Why do you continue to point this out? You do realize that not every family has 4 kids right? Great deal for them, not as good for a single person.see Youtube. loaded with ads
You think Apple Music is going to kill YouTube? Wow that's a stretch.
There have always been 2 ways to listen to music......either you pay and have complete control over what you listen to, or you don't and have what you listen to picked by a DJ or an algorithm. Apple Music (and other paid services) will work because there will always be those of us that will pay for the privilege to listen to what we want when we want. We are their target audience, not those who never pay for music.
Is YouTube solely a music service?
Well. It's pretty easy to get an internet label to represent you these days. Like imusiciandigital or reverbnation. For a small fee they'll publish your tracks and leave you with the majority of the cut.
And a lot of that is music that can't be found on the music services.
No way in hell that happens. Block the iOS users who have the most $$$? LOL. Thats the bullshit some idiot analysis was spewing a few days ago. No way that happens. Ad block blocks the intrusive and obnoxious ads such as full screen popups, video and audio that plays automatically, and ads that block the article text. Bottom line is these websites need to use more discrete ads instead of the normal Google POS intrusive ads.
I have a large site that makes over $18000 a month by having targeted ads alongside my content. The only source of income on the site is the ads that are shown. I don't care how much money an iOS user has, if I can't render my ads I don't make money from them.
As for which ads are blocked, that depends on the ad blocker. Android have one that blocks all google ads. Most good ad blockers will give options to either display "White listed" ads, or block all ads that are not part of the actual page hosted at the site.
The type of ads you mention are the ads that most good ad blockers block by default.
When people choose to listen to music by streaming, they don't care about picking music or downloading. They don't care to pay $10 per month when they can listen for free. Apple hasn't changed the game because streaming music and subscription services have been around for YEARS before Apple decided to join in. Apple is late in the game, and buying Beats won't help them. You assume everyone has a family. The service is $10 per month. Many families still use the same Apple ID, so unlikely they would pay for a family pack. iTunes Radio was a joke, repeating the same songs or freezing altogether. It is about as popular as the failed Ping service. Not many people want to "rent" their music, so the subscription model isn't exactly a successful one. Even Apple can't fix that. I would never pay to rent music, and I have zero interest in paying $10 a month for streaming music when I can do it for free with Pandora or Spotify. Remember, when you stop paying, those fake 'downloads' stop working.
That's not their target audience. their target audience are those that don't mind paying for music. I am someone who buys music and this definitely appeals to me. I'd rather have access to 30 million songs than to keep paying for downloads.