I am a paid subscriber and I love it. Apple have ironed out a lot of the early bugs with the service and I don't really have any complaints about it anymore.
One suggestion for any Apple staff who are reading this is to put a bit more emphasis on social sharing of playlists. I don't personally need it (as I don't care what other people are listening to, LOL!) but friends who are still using Spotify constantly cite this as a reason for them staying with Spot.
The UI is good for me. I enjoy it and find it to be user friendly. People complained of losing their playlists at first. All one has to do is go to My Music, Playlists, and then search by the name of supposedly lost playlist. It'll pop up and play as usual. No need to be a d--k.
I'm a family-plan subscriber. We listened to one of the radio stations recently for about 2-3 hrs on our iMac, and on many tracks played there was a lot of stuttering and stalls, so much so that I had to hit the skip button multiple times during that 2-3 hr period. It was disappointing.
What's more, is that their streaming business model is actually sustainable.
Curious about this. Outwardly it differs very little from Spotify. In fact Spotify can arguably be more expensive. What makes it sustainable?
Say what? Are you completely missing the fact that the majority of Spotify members AREN'T paying?
The ads don't cover the costs to serve these customers.
As to what the Lightning port can handle in terms of bitrate, that's up to Apple and their internal software/hardware (regarding simply playing music). There are lots of Apps that can record or play back 24/196 audio using the Lightning port or the older 30 pin connector (think audio production Apps). And some of those can even record up to 16 tracks at once.
From ny reading that Spotify pays out ~70% of their revenue. Regardless of free or paid streaming.
You are correct about how Spotify pays royalties... I was totally off base. But the paid customers are still supporting the free customers since free-ad revenue is only 10% of their revenue. If Spotify keeps getting more free users without getting even more paid subscribers... it means this lopsided situation will continue.
But I was mainly talking about the financial sustainability of the company itself.
Yes... Spotify spends a fixed proportion of its total revenue on royalties. That means if Spotify doubles its subscriber base, it also doubles the amount of money it pays out. Many people think it can never get ahead of its costs.
Case in point... Spotify had $1.3 billion in revenue in 2014.
From ny reading that Spotify pays out ~70% of their revenue. Regardless of free or paid streaming.
You are correct about how Spotify pays royalties... I was totally off base. But the paid customers are still supporting the free customers since free-ad revenue is only 10% of their revenue. If Spotify keeps getting more free users without getting even more paid subscribers... it means this lopsided situation will continue.
But I was mainly talking about the financial sustainability of the company itself.
Yes... Spotify spends a fixed proportion of its total revenue on royalties. That means if Spotify doubles its subscriber base, it also doubles the amount of money it pays out. Many people think it can never get ahead of its costs.
Case in point... Spotify had $1.3 billion in revenue in 2014.
Curious about this. Outwardly it differs very little from Spotify. In fact Spotify can arguably be more expensive. What makes it sustainable?
Say what? Are you completely missing the fact that the majority of Spotify members AREN'T paying?
The ads don't cover the costs to serve these customers.
No I'm not missing anything. Spotify don't pay by the stream. They take their revenue, keep 30% for themselves and spread the rest around to content owners. Ads are part of that revenue.
So yes, there are free subscribers and I agree that advertising probably doesn't cover the costs of individual subscribers, but I would also argue the infrastructure to support 75 million users should not significantly more expensive than that required to support the 20 million users who do pay for the service.
To respond to another post, the idea that something is sustainable because one has money in the bank is laughable. Technically true, but asinine. Almost no one think about sustainable in that way.
I've got Apple Music myself as part of my cell plan and I still choose to pay for Spotify because Apple Music is all over the place. the UI is shit. I can't say objectively so because beauty is in the eye of the beholder but in not the only one to think so. The few times I did use it I discovered I don't mind me a bit of r&b but that's about it for now. I might go back to it later.
From ny reading that Spotify pays out ~70% of their revenue. Regardless of free or paid streaming.
You are correct about how Spotify pays royalties... I was totally off base. But the paid customers are still supporting the free customers since free-ad revenue is only 10% of their revenue. If Spotify keeps getting more free users without getting even more paid subscribers... it means this lopsided situation will continue.
But I was mainly talking about the financial sustainability of the company itself.
Yes... Spotify spends a fixed proportion of its total revenue on royalties. That means if Spotify doubles its subscriber base, it also doubles the amount of money it pays out. Many people think it can never get ahead of its costs.
Case in point... Spotify had $1.3 billion in revenue in 2014.
But they spent $1.5 billion.
They haven't figured out how to escape that trap.
No doubt. The real problem is convincing people of the value of music and therefore being able set the cost higher. I think that's something that's been significantly eroded in the digital age and the 99c single probably killed it.
I'm a family-plan subscriber. We listened to one of the radio stations recently for about 2-3 hrs on our iMac, and on many tracks played there was a lot of stuttering and stalls, so much so that I had to hit the skip button multiple times during that 2-3 hr period. It was disappointing.
Make sure it's not a network problem before blaming apple.
You are correct about how Spotify pays royalties... I was totally off base. But the paid customers are still supporting the free customers since free-ad revenue is only 10% of their revenue. If Spotify keeps getting more free users without getting even more paid subscribers... it means this lopsided situation will continue.
But I was mainly talking about the financial sustainability of the company itself.
Yes... Spotify spends a fixed proportion of its total revenue on royalties. That means if Spotify doubles its subscriber base, it also doubles the amount of money it pays out. Many people think it can never get ahead of its costs.
Case in point... Spotify had $1.3 billion in revenue in 2014.
But they spent $1.5 billion.
They haven't figured out how to escape that trap.
No doubt. The real problem is convincing people of the value of music and therefore being able set the cost higher. I think that's something that's been significantly eroded in the digital age and the 99c single probably killed it.
That's true. But they can't raise the prices too high... as that might push people away. (or they simply won't sign up in the first place)
Spotify might start making money if it was $15/month for single users and $20/month for families... but that might also be too high for people to pay.
I think it's still a hell of a deal for an all-you-can-listen buffet of over 30 million songs. I pay $10 for Apple Music... just to play at parties once in a while. I'm not even a regular listener.
But they're still competing with free. I can go on YouTube and listen to almost any song imaginable in a matter of seconds. Once music became infinitely copyable, easy to transfer files... it's tough to put that genie back in the bottle.
I think streaming music is the right idea... it's just the business model that needs work. Maybe it's destined to run at a loss forever?
Apple can handle that... they could honestly run it break-even or even at a slight loss just to make their customers happy. Google, Amazon and Microsoft too.
No doubt. The real problem is convincing people of the value of music and therefore being able set the cost higher. I think that's something that's been significantly eroded in the digital age and the 99c single probably killed it.
That's true. But they can't raise the prices too high... as that might push people away. (or they simply won't sign up in the first place)
Spotify might start making money if it was $15/month for single users and $20/month for families... but that might also be too high for people to pay.
I think it's still a hell of a deal for an all-you-can-listen buffet of over 30 million songs. I pay $10 for Apple Music... just to play at parties once in a while. I'm not even a regular listener.
But they're still competing with free. I can go on YouTube and listen to almost any song imaginable in a matter of seconds. Once music became infinitely copyable, easy to transfer files... it's tough to put that genie back in the bottle.
I think streaming music is the right idea... it's just the business model that needs work. Maybe it's destined to run at a loss forever?
Apple can handle that... they could honestly run it break-even or even at a slight loss just to make their customers happy. Google, Amazon and Microsoft too.
Spotify can't, though.
$15 a month has been tried over the years, but people won't pay more than $9.95 a month. That puts these services in a bind. I told the then CEO of Tidal, a few months befor Jay Zee bought the company, that it would fail here. He didn't understand that. He said that it was working in the few, small countries they had it in in Europe. Well, he's long gone, as are two other CEOs. They now offer compressed $9.95 streams as well as a $20 a month minimum price uncompressed stream. Still not going to make it.
Comments
Say what? Are you completely missing the fact that the majority of Spotify members AREN'T paying?
The ads don't cover the costs to serve these customers.
As to what the Lightning port can handle in terms of bitrate, that's up to Apple and their internal software/hardware (regarding simply playing music). There are lots of Apps that can record or play back 24/196 audio using the Lightning port or the older 30 pin connector (think audio production Apps). And some of those can even record up to 16 tracks at once.
But I was mainly talking about the financial sustainability of the company itself.
Yes... Spotify spends a fixed proportion of its total revenue on royalties. That means if Spotify doubles its subscriber base, it also doubles the amount of money it pays out. Many people think it can never get ahead of its costs.
Case in point... Spotify had $1.3 billion in revenue in 2014.
But they spent $1.5 billion.
They haven't figured out how to escape that trap.
But I was mainly talking about the financial sustainability of the company itself.
Yes... Spotify spends a fixed proportion of its total revenue on royalties. That means if Spotify doubles its subscriber base, it also doubles the amount of money it pays out. Many people think it can never get ahead of its costs.
Case in point... Spotify had $1.3 billion in revenue in 2014.
But they spent $1.5 billion.
They haven't figured out how to escape that trap.
No I'm not missing anything. Spotify don't pay by the stream. They take their revenue, keep 30% for themselves and spread the rest around to content owners. Ads are part of that revenue.
So yes, there are free subscribers and I agree that advertising probably doesn't cover the costs of individual subscribers, but I would also argue the infrastructure to support 75 million users should not significantly more expensive than that required to support the 20 million users who do pay for the service.
To respond to another post, the idea that something is sustainable because one has money in the bank is laughable. Technically true, but asinine. Almost no one think about sustainable in that way.
I've got Apple Music myself as part of my cell plan and I still choose to pay for Spotify because Apple Music is all over the place. the UI is shit. I can't say objectively so because beauty is in the eye of the beholder but in not the only one to think so. The few times I did use it I discovered I don't mind me a bit of r&b but that's about it for now. I might go back to it later.
No doubt. The real problem is convincing people of the value of music and therefore being able set the cost higher. I think that's something that's been significantly eroded in the digital age and the 99c single probably killed it.
Spotify might start making money if it was $15/month for single users and $20/month for families... but that might also be too high for people to pay.
I think it's still a hell of a deal for an all-you-can-listen buffet of over 30 million songs. I pay $10 for Apple Music... just to play at parties once in a while. I'm not even a regular listener.
But they're still competing with free. I can go on YouTube and listen to almost any song imaginable in a matter of seconds. Once music became infinitely copyable, easy to transfer files... it's tough to put that genie back in the bottle.
I think streaming music is the right idea... it's just the business model that needs work. Maybe it's destined to run at a loss forever?
Apple can handle that... they could honestly run it break-even or even at a slight loss just to make their customers happy. Google, Amazon and Microsoft too.
Spotify can't, though.