I don't think Apple Music is doing very well. I base my opinion solely on my peer group, which of course is anything BUT a scientific study. That said, I know quite a few iPhone owners and only one has signed up for Apple Music (and doesn't think she'll keep using it after the free trial). Many use Spotify. When I ask why they haven't tried Apple Music, they all pretty much just shrug it off and say they already like Spotify and don't see the point. Apple Music is ambitious, but ultimately doesn't bring anything new to the table. So why use it? Why switch from something that already works for you? I think Apple is going to struggle with this one, not because the product/service is bad, but because they haven't given customers a compelling reason to switch from other services.
I refuse to subscribe to Apple Music (or any other streaming service), although I still buy a few albums every month from the iTunes Store. I don't like streaming music, primarily because it sucks for artists. As someone who ran an indie record label for over a decade, I think artists should be fairly compensated and there's no streaming service that treats artists well. By supporting streaming, you're destroying the traditional model where artists make a royalty on every album (or song) sold in favor of a world where a song can be streamed millions of times and the artist only sees a few hundred bucks. It's shameful.
It's totally possible that he was never psyched to be working at Apple long-term, but stayed on to make sure the transition happened smoothly. The departure is only a surprise to us on the outside. This may very well have been their agreement from the outset of the acquisition.
I refuse to subscribe to Apple Music (or any other streaming service), although I still buy a few albums every month from the iTunes Store. I don't like streaming music, primarily because it sucks for artists. As someone who ran an indie record label for over a decade, I think artists should be fairly compensated and there's no streaming service that treats artists well. By supporting streaming, you're destroying the traditional model where artists make a royalty on every album (or song) sold in favor of a world where a song can be streamed millions of times and the artist only sees a few hundred bucks. It's shameful.
The streaming model is corrupt indeed:
I wonder how Apple is ever going to pay two micro cents - 0,02c - to an artist?
Seriously, anything money related should start from 1 cent (1,00c).
I still haven't signed up for Apple Music. Not because I don't think it'd be cool. But I feel like I need an opportunity in my life for some downtime when I can spend the three month trial really digging in and using it a lot. If I start the trial now, and I'm too busy, the trial will slip by and I won't have had a chance to really try it all out.
My other concern is that I'm an iTunes Match subscriber. And I _LOVE_ iTunes Match. I'm a bit worried that signing up for Apple Music might pooch my iTunes Matched library. Have these issues been resolved yet?
The iTunes Match issues are a big reason why I didn't bother with Apple Music. Apple has a penchant for making changes irreversible once you choose to migrate to one of their newer services, and I spent way too much time building and curating my music collection to let Apple Music start making arbitrary changes.
Also, the Music app in iOS 8.4 is big step back in functionality. I can no longer play the cached songs on my device without a network connection (the songs still consume space on the device, but are no longer accessible offline). And the less said about the changes to the Radio function the better. I use it in the car, but the frequent service outages and eliminating the ability to preset "My Stations" has made the feature more of an ordeal than something that delights this user.
As I've said before, Apple is trying to force feed a DRM-enabled music service onto a platform originally built for managing music files that users own. And in the process, they've diminished the functionality for people who frequently use their devices offline.
I wonder how Apple is ever going to pay two micro cents - 0,02c - to an artist?
Seriously, anything money related should start from 1 cent (1,00c).
Agreed. It makes me sick when I hear Cook, etc. talk about how much they love music - while totally screwing over artists. How about using some of that 200 billion dollar cash pile to pay content creators a fair streaming (or royalty) rate?
I refuse to subscribe to Apple Music (or any other streaming service), although I still buy a few albums every month from the iTunes Store. I don't like streaming music, primarily because it sucks for artists. As someone who ran an indie record label for over a decade, I think artists should be fairly compensated and there's no streaming service that treats artists well. By supporting streaming, you're destroying the traditional model where artists make a royalty on every album (or song) sold in favor of a world where a song can be streamed millions of times and the artist only sees a few hundred bucks. It's shameful.
Shameful, perhaps, but it is the new reality. I completely see your point but the world has changed and it will not go back to royalty based earnings from albums sold.
I have a car, I listen to tons of music, and I don't expect bother with Apple Music either (or Spotify or any of those).
Streaming is for people who don't know what they want in their music or where to find it, apart from which, I don't want to mess up my multi-thousand song library on iTunes Match either. I'll wait. A few years.
My sentiments as well. My iTunes library is backed up daily via Time Machine, but why take the risk it'll get messed up? Not worth it to me just to give Music a shot. Would take hours to restore via backup.
Agreed. It makes me sick when I hear Cook, etc. talk about how much they love music - while totally screwing over artists. How about using some of that 200 billion dollar cash pile to pay content creators a fair streaming (or royalty) rate?
What is a fair rate? Is it a flat rate that is higher than what it is today, or is it a variable rate based on number of plays. Upping the price per per play will help the fledgeling artist and also make the extremely successful ones proportionally richer.
Probably because Beats music was better than Apple Music. I've used both.
Or could be because he sees the poor performance of Apple Music and doesn't want to take the blame for a product that was out of his control.
Hope it's not the latter.
Or it could be that he helped get the service up and running and once it was he decided he would rather go somewhere else and be top dog. If you are the CEO type why would you work for Apple? The primary challenge would be to keep biting your tongue and where's the fun in that.
Shameful, perhaps, but it is the new reality. I completely see your point but the world has changed and it will not go back to royalty based earnings from albums sold.
Neither are favourable, nor realistic, but I am surprised Apple has joined the rat race to the bottom (at the expense of the artist).
Shameful, perhaps, but it is the new reality. I completely see your point but the world has changed and it will not go back to royalty based earnings from albums sold.
And how are artists supposed to make a living? There are other revenue streams obviously (touring, merchandise, licensing tracks for use in movies, commercials, etc), but these aren't a guarantee. And if no one is buying physical media anymore, you can't sell CDs at shows, which is how indie bands used to make a lot of their money. The world has only changed because we have allowed it to change. If you actually care about artists, you don't support streaming services. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just part of the problem.
What is a fair rate? Is it a flat rate that is higher than what it is today, or is it a variable rate based on number of plays. Upping the price per per play will help the fledgeling artist and also make the extremely successful ones proportionally richer.
Good question. Whatever it is, an artist shouldn't have a tracked streamed MILLIONS of times and only see a few HUNDRED bucks out of it, though. That's just wrong.
And how are artists supposed to make a living? There are other revenue streams obviously (touring, merchandise, licensing tracks for use in movies, commercials, etc), but these aren't a guarantee. And if no one is buying physical media anymore, you can't sell CDs at shows, which is how indie bands used to make a lot of their money. The world has only changed because we have allowed it to change. If you actually care about artists, you don't support streaming services. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just part of the problem.
I'd like to give a monthly fee to my favorite artist in exchange for access to his music and creative endeavours. Just like with Patreon. It encourages diversity. This clearly is the way to go for 'Connect'.
I'd like to give a monthly fee to my favorite artist in exchange for access to his music and creative endeavours. Just like with Patreon. It encourages diversity. This clearly is the way to go for 'Connect'.
How about going a step further and signing on with Google Contributor? Help prove it's a viable means of supporting content creators and providers, reducing the importance of ad revenue for those folks. https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
And how are artists supposed to make a living? There are other revenue streams obviously (touring, merchandise, licensing tracks for use in movies, commercials, etc), but these aren't a guarantee. And if no one is buying physical media anymore, you can't sell CDs at shows, which is how indie bands used to make a lot of their money. The world has only changed because we have allowed it to change. If you actually care about artists, you don't support streaming services. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just part of the problem.
The world changed because people want something for nothing.
And this nothing new; how many writers earn enough to make a living out of it?
Maybe he *shocker" accomplished what he set out to accomplish, which is to setup Beats1 and launch Apple music, and now wants to move on to something new?
Na, obviously he's just fleeing a sinking ship, etc.
Maybe he *shocker" accomplished what he set out to accomplish, which is to setup Beats1 and launch Apple music, and now wants to move on to something new?
Na, obviously he's just fleeing a sinking ship, etc.
This man was living his Dream according to Re/Code. He even has the 'Next' logo tattooed on his leg. I can hardly imagine him giving up his Dream at the first hurdle?
Comments
I don't think Apple Music is doing very well. I base my opinion solely on my peer group, which of course is anything BUT a scientific study. That said, I know quite a few iPhone owners and only one has signed up for Apple Music (and doesn't think she'll keep using it after the free trial). Many use Spotify. When I ask why they haven't tried Apple Music, they all pretty much just shrug it off and say they already like Spotify and don't see the point. Apple Music is ambitious, but ultimately doesn't bring anything new to the table. So why use it? Why switch from something that already works for you? I think Apple is going to struggle with this one, not because the product/service is bad, but because they haven't given customers a compelling reason to switch from other services.
I refuse to subscribe to Apple Music (or any other streaming service), although I still buy a few albums every month from the iTunes Store. I don't like streaming music, primarily because it sucks for artists. As someone who ran an indie record label for over a decade, I think artists should be fairly compensated and there's no streaming service that treats artists well. By supporting streaming, you're destroying the traditional model where artists make a royalty on every album (or song) sold in favor of a world where a song can be streamed millions of times and the artist only sees a few hundred bucks. It's shameful.
Probabily wants to be a CEO again.
At Apple he's a fish in a massive ocean.
It's totally possible that he was never psyched to be working at Apple long-term, but stayed on to make sure the transition happened smoothly. The departure is only a surprise to us on the outside. This may very well have been their agreement from the outset of the acquisition.
I refuse to subscribe to Apple Music (or any other streaming service), although I still buy a few albums every month from the iTunes Store. I don't like streaming music, primarily because it sucks for artists. As someone who ran an indie record label for over a decade, I think artists should be fairly compensated and there's no streaming service that treats artists well. By supporting streaming, you're destroying the traditional model where artists make a royalty on every album (or song) sold in favor of a world where a song can be streamed millions of times and the artist only sees a few hundred bucks. It's shameful.
The streaming model is corrupt indeed:
I wonder how Apple is ever going to pay two micro cents - 0,02c - to an artist?
Seriously, anything money related should start from 1 cent (1,00c).
I still haven't signed up for Apple Music. Not because I don't think it'd be cool. But I feel like I need an opportunity in my life for some downtime when I can spend the three month trial really digging in and using it a lot. If I start the trial now, and I'm too busy, the trial will slip by and I won't have had a chance to really try it all out.
My other concern is that I'm an iTunes Match subscriber. And I _LOVE_ iTunes Match. I'm a bit worried that signing up for Apple Music might pooch my iTunes Matched library. Have these issues been resolved yet?
The iTunes Match issues are a big reason why I didn't bother with Apple Music. Apple has a penchant for making changes irreversible once you choose to migrate to one of their newer services, and I spent way too much time building and curating my music collection to let Apple Music start making arbitrary changes.
Also, the Music app in iOS 8.4 is big step back in functionality. I can no longer play the cached songs on my device without a network connection (the songs still consume space on the device, but are no longer accessible offline). And the less said about the changes to the Radio function the better. I use it in the car, but the frequent service outages and eliminating the ability to preset "My Stations" has made the feature more of an ordeal than something that delights this user.
As I've said before, Apple is trying to force feed a DRM-enabled music service onto a platform originally built for managing music files that users own. And in the process, they've diminished the functionality for people who frequently use their devices offline.
The streaming model is corrupt indeed:
I wonder how Apple is ever going to pay two micro cents - 0,02c - to an artist?
Seriously, anything money related should start from 1 cent (1,00c).
Agreed. It makes me sick when I hear Cook, etc. talk about how much they love music - while totally screwing over artists. How about using some of that 200 billion dollar cash pile to pay content creators a fair streaming (or royalty) rate?
Shameful, perhaps, but it is the new reality. I completely see your point but the world has changed and it will not go back to royalty based earnings from albums sold.
My sentiments as well. My iTunes library is backed up daily via Time Machine, but why take the risk it'll get messed up? Not worth it to me just to give Music a shot. Would take hours to restore via backup.
What is a fair rate? Is it a flat rate that is higher than what it is today, or is it a variable rate based on number of plays. Upping the price per per play will help the fledgeling artist and also make the extremely successful ones proportionally richer.
Shameful, perhaps, but it is the new reality. I completely see your point but the world has changed and it will not go back to royalty based earnings from albums sold.
Neither are favourable, nor realistic, but I am surprised Apple has joined the rat race to the bottom (at the expense of the artist).
Shameful, perhaps, but it is the new reality. I completely see your point but the world has changed and it will not go back to royalty based earnings from albums sold.
And how are artists supposed to make a living? There are other revenue streams obviously (touring, merchandise, licensing tracks for use in movies, commercials, etc), but these aren't a guarantee. And if no one is buying physical media anymore, you can't sell CDs at shows, which is how indie bands used to make a lot of their money. The world has only changed because we have allowed it to change. If you actually care about artists, you don't support streaming services. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just part of the problem.
What is a fair rate? Is it a flat rate that is higher than what it is today, or is it a variable rate based on number of plays. Upping the price per per play will help the fledgeling artist and also make the extremely successful ones proportionally richer.
Good question. Whatever it is, an artist shouldn't have a tracked streamed MILLIONS of times and only see a few HUNDRED bucks out of it, though. That's just wrong.
And how are artists supposed to make a living? There are other revenue streams obviously (touring, merchandise, licensing tracks for use in movies, commercials, etc), but these aren't a guarantee. And if no one is buying physical media anymore, you can't sell CDs at shows, which is how indie bands used to make a lot of their money. The world has only changed because we have allowed it to change. If you actually care about artists, you don't support streaming services. It's that simple. Otherwise you're just part of the problem.
I'd like to give a monthly fee to my favorite artist in exchange for access to his music and creative endeavours. Just like with Patreon. It encourages diversity. This clearly is the way to go for 'Connect'.
How about going a step further and signing on with Google Contributor? Help prove it's a viable means of supporting content creators and providers, reducing the importance of ad revenue for those folks.
https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
The world changed because people want something for nothing.
And this nothing new; how many writers earn enough to make a living out of it?
The world changed because people want something for nothing.
And this nothing new; how many writers earn enough to make a living out of it?
No argument, but that doesn't make it right.
Maybe he *shocker" accomplished what he set out to accomplish, which is to setup Beats1 and launch Apple music, and now wants to move on to something new?
Na, obviously he's just fleeing a sinking ship, etc.
Guess he couldn't get on at Amazon.
Maybe he *shocker" accomplished what he set out to accomplish, which is to setup Beats1 and launch Apple music, and now wants to move on to something new?
Na, obviously he's just fleeing a sinking ship, etc.
This man was living his Dream according to Re/Code. He even has the 'Next' logo tattooed on his leg. I can hardly imagine him giving up his Dream at the first hurdle?