Apple execs say 'no end date' to iTunes downloads, sales in better-than-expected decline
There is no official wind-down schedule for iTunes music downloads, and while sales are on the decline they're still doing better than expected, Apple's head of internet software and services said in an interview published Tuesday.
"There's no end date, and as a matter of fact, [labels and publishers] should all be surprised and thankful to the results that they're seeing because our music iTunes business is doing very well," Eddy Cue told Billboard. He suggested that the decline is being staunched partly because "a lot" of people are content with downloading music and not veering towards subscriptions.
Another Apple executive, Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor, said it was "inevitable that downloads will diminish" -- much like CD sales crashed in the 2000s -- but also argued that there was no reason downloads couldn't co-exist with streaming, in the same way people still buy vinyl.
Recent Digital Music News reports have claimed that Apple is preparing to phase out iTunes downloads in the next few years in favor of Apple Music. Earlier this month the site said that Apple is simply keeping its options open, and rearchitecting iTunes in a way that will let it drop music downloads if sales fall dramatically.
In 2015, streaming revenues surpassed downloads for the first time as people increasingly turned to services like Spotify, Apple Music, and Google Play Music. Apple Music recently hit 15 million paid subscribers, about half of Spotify's, although the latter also has many listeners on its free ad-supported tier.
"There's no end date, and as a matter of fact, [labels and publishers] should all be surprised and thankful to the results that they're seeing because our music iTunes business is doing very well," Eddy Cue told Billboard. He suggested that the decline is being staunched partly because "a lot" of people are content with downloading music and not veering towards subscriptions.
Another Apple executive, Nine Inch Nails frontman Trent Reznor, said it was "inevitable that downloads will diminish" -- much like CD sales crashed in the 2000s -- but also argued that there was no reason downloads couldn't co-exist with streaming, in the same way people still buy vinyl.
Recent Digital Music News reports have claimed that Apple is preparing to phase out iTunes downloads in the next few years in favor of Apple Music. Earlier this month the site said that Apple is simply keeping its options open, and rearchitecting iTunes in a way that will let it drop music downloads if sales fall dramatically.
In 2015, streaming revenues surpassed downloads for the first time as people increasingly turned to services like Spotify, Apple Music, and Google Play Music. Apple Music recently hit 15 million paid subscribers, about half of Spotify's, although the latter also has many listeners on its free ad-supported tier.
Comments
I'm buying Vinyl again as well. Sorry Apple, spotify etc streaming is not for me so please continue to offer an alternative service.
Also, ideally, there would be separate tiers for different encoding, so true audiophiles (I'm not one) could stream, or at least download, higher quality sound. And finally, when leaving the service (ending a subscription) it'd be great for the service to give you an option to then choose those downloaded [rented] tracks you'd like to buy and perhaps offer a volume discount of the big one-time purchase.
If the above were in place, then it's a simple matter of math. A subscription for the rest of your life, say 30 years of music listening, would cost $3600. And that's $3600 spread across 30 years. Assume cheaper dollars in the future (net present value of future money), but offset by rising subscription costs to make up for inflation. But still, it's spread across 30 years. And that would give you the ability to download and create your own playlists against a library of 600, 6000, or 60,000 songs, or any other number you could dedicate the time to select and the space to store. And it wouldn't be a static library of music, but a library of music you could constantly refresh as you used the streaming service to discovery new music. What does such an ability cost under the iTunes download-and-own model? An initial $6000, or $60,000, plus constant outlay to refresh and update the library? Hmm, seems streaming, if implemented properly, and with the appropriate perspective on the part of the customer, is an amazing bargain.
I can confirm all the offline copies work without internet for as long as you log in with your membership account.
I personally don't like the idea of separate tiers for better quality. Yes, I can pay more for that, but why should I. As a paid member I expect all my songs should be in the highest quality that they can offer. I will be disappointed if I knew they also have better version but need to pay more for that.
For me it's stream to discover and download/ buy to enjoy.
I love the curated playlists that help me discover stuff old and new. If I stream a song more than once, I just end up saving it off-line onto a playlist called "Caught on Stream".
Since Apple Music launched, I've discovered tons of songs I really love, which I wouldn't have had a chance to hear.
However, there are artists I blind-buy on iTunes.
As far as radio goes, surprisingly the one I listen to the most is BBC Radio! Then again, who doesn't love the English accent!!
I also subscribe to Apple Music. It surprises me that "music owners" don't see the value of streaming. It is an amazing bargain. For $10-15/month you have access to millions of tracks. I save more than $15/month by finding out that I don't have to buy a certain album on vinyl, CD, DL. It is great for sampling "deluxe" box sets to see if the extra tracks are worth rebuying an album a second time. Plus I listen to music I never ever would have took a gamble on.