Let me know when there's a $4.99 option for other people other then students!!! Otherwise I have no reason to sign up and will just continue to use Amazon Prime Music as part of my Prime Membership. I really don't tune into a lot of music these days. I just got tired of paying for it. Trying to keep my library updated. How about a hours per month limitation or something and drop the price down more. At this point, $7.99 would change noting for me. $2, who cares.
I understand people being passionate about this topic, and there has been much competition in music delivery (and likely always will be,) But I do sort of wonder about how Apple sees the future of its "services" category of business. It seems almost ripe for separate management. When that Beats guy showed up at WWDC, it was a high water mark of cringeworthy.
I also concluded that the desktop cloud feature in Sierra was wholly designed to sell more iCloud space. A far more user friendly system is further implementation of "back to my mac" kind of system. 5TB HDs are now about $100, but Apple can't make money selling HDs. They can, however, make money selling server space. It seems perhaps integration of services into their existing products is their strategy...to a point. iAd seemed to be a complete failure, so perhaps a learning experience?
I like to listen to music, but only an hour of so a week works into my personal use case. So.. Apple... on a per play basis... I would be glad to pay you 30% over what you pay to the Record labels... deal? [what is that like?... 25 cents an hour of music?)
Lowering the reasonably low Apple Music prices would be great for gaining more subscribers all over the world.
The Apple Music service with its impeccable UI is already the best and making it the most cost effective would really stick it to the competition and gain more subscribers. A lot of Android users would love this. First they become Apple Music users then they become full blown iPhone users.
Apple Music totally rocks!
That's my thinking for iMessage. For as many users would use that as an excuse to move to Android I think twice as many Android users will get a taste of these Apple services and switch to iPhone next time around. And it stops another chat service from completely taken over by offering cross-compatibility negating the reason to own an iPhone being a chat service in the first place. In Europe it's basically impossible to not have FB messenger or WhatsApp or both on your iPhone. With iMessage on Android we would get rid of these apps and have a more seamless messaging experience as iPhone users. And yes it makes it easier for people to switch, but also makes it easier to switch back and other points above are more crucial. With iMessage on Android other chat apps take over on both platforms like FB messenger and WhatsApp are in Europe and Asia.
Seriously doubt that. Having run both OS's (still do), working with switchers, knowing switchers, reading many many post and articles on this, it is generally a basic user expectation: one basic design vs. multiple choices (models and functionality). Change is uncomfortable. There will always be switchers, just in the numbers you are alluding.
I doubt the music performers and songwriters would look favorably on lower subscription prices. Total payouts to them are limited to a fixed percentage of the subscription income (roughly 70% of what Apple and some others get), not a guaranteed payment per play. Lower streaming prices would result in less income for the artists, at least in the immediate term.
Not necessarily. Apple can charge whatever it wants for its products, like Apple Music. It's down to them if they want to make any money off of it.
Artists with content on streaming services are indeed paid per play, and probably with a minimum amount guaranteed per play, and a scaling up from that to a maximum amount per play after so many thousands of streams.
This way, only artists who subscribers actually listen to get paid (versus artists who get no play [and karaoke tracks that get no play]). If the payment scheme was a percentage of the subscription, classical and jazz would be pulling in the same dollars, as big as pop and hip-hop, simply because they're available on a given platform. That's not the case.
I doubt the music performers and songwriters would look favorably on lower subscription prices. Total payouts to them are limited to a fixed percentage of the subscription income (roughly 70% of what Apple and some others get), not a guaranteed payment per play. Lower streaming prices would result in less income for the artists, at least in the immediate term.
Not necessarily. Apple can charge whatever it wants for its products, like Apple Music. It's down to them if they want to make any money off of it.
Artists with content on streaming services are indeed paid per play, and probably with a minimum amount guaranteed per play, and a scaling up from that to a maximum amount per play after so many thousands of streams.
This way, only artists who subscribers actually listen to get paid (versus artists who get no play [and karaoke tracks that get no play]). If the payment scheme was a percentage of the subscription, classical and jazz would be pulling in the same dollars, as big as pop and hip-hop, simply because they're available on a given platform. That's not the case.
It IS a percentage of the total subscription fees that gets paid out to artists. Apple is guaranteeing themselves about 30%, just as some other streamers do. There is no guarantee of any set amount for pay per play for the labels/artists/songwriters, simply divying up the remianing 70% based on how often any particular song was streamed.
If the subscription fees are reduced then the amount of each subscription flowing to the owners of the performance would decrease. No doubt that eventually shear numbers of subscribers would replace the royalties lost from the reduced fees, but the immediate effect would be less income for the IP owners.
Don't forget: An easy way to get savings on Apple Music, App Store purchases, etc, is to buy iTunes gift cards whenever they're on sale, which often happens over the holidays.
Comments
I also concluded that the desktop cloud feature in Sierra was wholly designed to sell more iCloud space. A far more user friendly system is further implementation of "back to my mac" kind of system. 5TB HDs are now about $100, but Apple can't make money selling HDs. They can, however, make money selling server space. It seems perhaps integration of services into their existing products is their strategy...to a point. iAd seemed to be a complete failure, so perhaps a learning experience?
If the subscription fees are reduced then the amount of each subscription flowing to the owners of the performance would decrease. No doubt that eventually shear numbers of subscribers would replace the royalties lost from the reduced fees, but the immediate effect would be less income for the IP owners.