This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
It’s not baffling at all. It’s just one more ‘Apple has the most of something’ Daniel Eran article. Like a delayed-PTSD from the ‘Apple is about to die’ days. We can stop it now. Apple isn’t going anywhere.
Being number one at anything I should hope is not why any of us use Apple gear. Also, “quality” services going out of business? Is that why you want to shout about this number? Because were Apple in number two position with Drake streams you’d fear Apple Music may go out of business? Apple built the digital music industry with iPod and iTunes, and Apple Music is a music streaming service from this company which comes bundled on the home screen of every iOS device. We’re AM going out of business, considering the talent in the company, I’d be more concerned for Apple culture than the music service.
The real story here is why were Apple so slow on the uptake when it came to offering a music streaming service in the first place (institutional pride?), and why is Spotify, this app from a tiny Swedish company considered a better app by a lot of people? And when will Apple give modern users a dedicated AM app on the Mac?
Counting and even knowing the number of stones on a beach is boring. Appreciating the beauty of each one is another level.
I’ll reiterate for you: Drake? More Drake streams? This is what it’s come to?
This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
I think Ireland's comment was spot on.
I don't see anything baffling in it.
Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?
Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service?
Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.
The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.
Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base.
That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.
What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.
Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?
These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
It was corrections' point that baffled me.
I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?
Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake?
Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.
The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.
If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important? I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.
There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?
Jesus, why is this brainless guy even here?
(I’m just asking an honest question. Don’t ban me.)
That’s not an honest question. That’s a biased, projecting and rude question.
You’re right. It’s rude. It’s still honest though since that’s what came to my mind.
His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many.
This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
It’s not baffling at all. It’s just one more ‘Apple has the most of something’ Daniel Eran article. Like a delayed-PTSD from the ‘Apple is about to die’ days. We can stop it now. Apple isn’t going anywhere.
Being number one at anything I should hope is not why any of us use Apple gear. Also, “quality” services going out of business? Is that why you want to shout about this number? Because were Apple in number two position with Drake streams you’d fear Apple Music may go out of business? Apple built the digital music industry with iPod and iTunes, and Apple Music is a music streaming service from this company which comes bundled on the home screen of every iOS device. We’re AM going out of business, considering the talent in the company, I’d be more concerned for Apple culture than the music service.
The real story here is why were Apple so slow on the uptake when it came to offering a music streaming service in the first place (institutional pride?), and why is Spotify, this app from a tiny Swedish company considered a better app by a lot of people? And when will Apple give modern users a dedicated AM app on the Mac?
Counting and even knowing the number of stones on a beach is boring. Appreciating the beauty of each one is another level.
I’ll reiterate for you: Drake? More Drake streams? This is what it’s come to?
Hmm..., as a long time reader of AI, this post of yours is even more baffling to me than the previous one that had DED baffled.
What does this story have anything to do with how early or late Apple were to the streaming music market? Aren't you flogging a dead horse? And, an irrelevant one for this discussion?
And, why is winning a stream count akin to counting the number of stones on a beach? All the payments to the music artistes are after all based on some variation(s) of the stream count as a major factor.
You and I may not care for who Drake is or what is the quality of his music in comparison to artistes of yesteryears, but how does that detract from DED's factual observations about this particular streaming success on Apple Music?
This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
I think Ireland's comment was spot on.
I don't see anything baffling in it.
Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?
Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service?
Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.
The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.
Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base.
That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.
What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.
Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?
These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
It was corrections' point that baffled me.
I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?
Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake?
Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.
The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.
If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important? I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.
There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?
Jesus, why is this brainless guy even here?
(I’m just asking an honest question. Don’t ban me.)
That’s not an honest question. That’s a biased, projecting and rude question.
You’re right. It’s rude. It’s still honest though since that’s what came to my mind.
His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many.
NO. My post boiled down to 'why is this 'record' relevant' especially when compared to Spotify from a service perspective? It's trying to get my head around it and I still can't.
It had nothing to do with marketshare at all but in an attempt to understand things I explained what would make sense, which touched on marketshare - and simply because the article mentioned the subscriber proportions. Nothing more. I even gave a very simple example to highlight the point and still I can't see what I'm supposed to be seeing.
This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
It might be newsworthy, but hardly enough to boost AppleMusic's value above Spotify. It's really a tiny metric that amounts to almost nothing. Apple would need to be doing that every week.
Apple had better be careful or they'll get sued for having the most popular service and abusing their position or being a defacto monopoly.
We all know that this isn't the case but other streaming services won't take being beaten like this for long. They'll all have the transcripts from the Apple Books case to study and replicate how Apple lost.
This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
It’s not baffling at all. It’s just one more ‘Apple has the most of something’ Daniel Eran article. Like a delayed-PTSD from the ‘Apple is about to die’ days. We can stop it now. Apple isn’t going anywhere.
Being number one at anything I should hope is not why any of us use Apple gear. Also, “quality” services going out of business? Is that why you want to shout about this number? Because were Apple in number two position with Drake streams you’d fear Apple Music may go out of business? Apple built the digital music industry with iPod and iTunes, and Apple Music is a music streaming service from this company which comes bundled on the home screen of every iOS device. We’re AM going out of business, considering the talent in the company, I’d be more concerned for Apple culture than the music service.
The real story here is why were Apple so slow on the uptake when it came to offering a music streaming service in the first place (institutional pride?), and why is Spotify, this app from a tiny Swedish company considered a better app by a lot of people? And when will Apple give modern users a dedicated AM app on the Mac?
Counting and even knowing the number of stones on a beach is boring. Appreciating the beauty of each one is another level.
I’ll reiterate for you: Drake? More Drake streams? This is what it’s come to?
This is just a typical DED article. Find some meaningless comparison to show Apple is the biggest or the best. It’s like that Horace Dediu Apple summit which is nothing more than a place for Apple fanboys to hear speakers talk about how nobody gets Apple. Not surprisingly DED will be speaking at one on August 16th in NYC. And it only costs $525 to attend.
This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
It’s not baffling at all. It’s just one more ‘Apple has the most of something’ Daniel Eran article. Like a delayed-PTSD from the ‘Apple is about to die’ days. We can stop it now. Apple isn’t going anywhere.
Being number one at anything I should hope is not why any of us use Apple gear. Also, “quality” services going out of business? Is that why you want to shout about this number? Because were Apple in number two position with Drake streams you’d fear Apple Music may go out of business? Apple built the digital music industry with iPod and iTunes, and Apple Music is a music streaming service from this company which comes bundled on the home screen of every iOS device. We’re AM going out of business, considering the talent in the company, I’d be more concerned for Apple culture than the music service.
The real story here is why were Apple so slow on the uptake when it came to offering a music streaming service in the first place (institutional pride?), and why is Spotify, this app from a tiny Swedish company considered a better app by a lot of people? And when will Apple give modern users a dedicated AM app on the Mac?
Counting and even knowing the number of stones on a beach is boring. Appreciating the beauty of each one is another level.
I’ll reiterate for you: Drake? More Drake streams? This is what it’s come to?
This is just a typical DED article. Find some meaningless comparison to show Apple is the biggest or the best. It’s like that Horace Dediu Apple summit which is nothing more than a place for Apple fanboys to hear speakers talk about how nobody gets Apple. Not surprisingly DED will be speaking at one on August 16th in NYC. And it only costs $525 to attend.
This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
I think Ireland's comment was spot on.
I don't see anything baffling in it.
Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?
Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service?
Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.
The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.
Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base.
That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.
What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.
Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?
These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
It was corrections' point that baffled me.
I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?
Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake?
Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.
The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.
If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important? I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.
There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?
Jesus, why is this brainless guy even here?
(I’m just asking an honest question. Don’t ban me.)
That’s not an honest question. That’s a biased, projecting and rude question.
You’re right. It’s rude. It’s still honest though since that’s what came to my mind.
His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many.
NO. My post boiled down to 'why is this 'record' relevant' especially when compared to Spotify from a service perspective? It's trying to get my head around it and I still can't.
It had nothing to do with marketshare at all but in an attempt to understand things I explained what would make sense, which touched on marketshare - and simply because the article mentioned the subscriber proportions. Nothing more. I even gave a very simple example to highlight the point and still I can't see what I'm supposed to be seeing.
You need to spend less time 'splainin', and more time understanding how business works.
I don't care about Drake one way or another, but the metric for streams is important from the standpoint of artists, and what their value to the market is.
I'm guessing that Apple Music subscribers sees a higher value for at least one artist than the subscribers of Spotify do, and considering that Apple Music trails Spotify in total listeners, by near a factor of two, I'm guessing that it is kind of an important metric. Throw in that Apple has quite a bit of new Audio devices coming out, plus a new round of iPhones, and I'm seeing yet more profitless days ahead for Spotify. Perhaps they can find a White Knight to take them over and sustain them.
I would also note how you often use an arcane metric to posit how effective Huawei is in the market, yet when it actually comes down to corporate metrics, they aren't doing all that well except in marketshare growth, mostly at Samsung's expense. That the growth comes with a lot of acquisition costs leading to low margins, seems to always get you 'sprainin" as well.
Here's a note, just for you.
Xiaomi, which you were so excited about because they were pronouncing that they would give back to the customer anything above 5% profit, just had an IPO.
Where last year there was talk of $100 B, this year, they hit the low end of new expectations; their IPO netted $4.7 B.
This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
It’s not baffling at all. It’s just one more ‘Apple has the most of something’ Daniel Eran article. Like a delayed-PTSD from the ‘Apple is about to die’ days. We can stop it now. Apple isn’t going anywhere.
Being number one at anything I should hope is not why any of us use Apple gear. Also, “quality” services going out of business? Is that why you want to shout about this number? Because were Apple in number two position with Drake streams you’d fear Apple Music may go out of business? Apple built the digital music industry with iPod and iTunes, and Apple Music is a music streaming service from this company which comes bundled on the home screen of every iOS device. We’re AM going out of business, considering the talent in the company, I’d be more concerned for Apple culture than the music service.
The real story here is why were Apple so slow on the uptake when it came to offering a music streaming service in the first place (institutional pride?), and why is Spotify, this app from a tiny Swedish company considered a better app by a lot of people? And when will Apple give modern users a dedicated AM app on the Mac?
Counting and even knowing the number of stones on a beach is boring. Appreciating the beauty of each one is another level.
I’ll reiterate for you: Drake? More Drake streams? This is what it’s come to?
This is just a typical DED article. Find some meaningless comparison to show Apple is the biggest or the best. It’s like that Horace Dediu Apple summit which is nothing more than a place for Apple fanboys to hear speakers talk about how nobody gets Apple. Not surprisingly DED will be speaking at one on August 16th in NYC. And it only costs $525 to attend.
Wow, the fact Apple Music outperformed Spotify in streaming seems to have really struck a nerve.
That would explain all the excuses people are coming up to try and downplay the significance of this.
The fact that you have interpreted our reaction this way speaks volumes. There were a couple of terse comments on here about AM that were untrue, by those who spend their time on an Apple forum for God knows what reason.
However, a few us such as myself genuinely meant what we said. If iOS had a larger market share than Android it honestly wouldn’t mean anything to me.
That Apple has had more Drake streams than Spotify means little to me. Even if AM had 2X Spotify streams in total (for all artists), I wouldn’t care. I don’t use Apple products because their sales or user numbers are larger than the next guy. I use Apple’s products for design, reliability and support reasons. There were no nerves touched, just boring investor-related words read. I’m appalled you’d react this way. My comment was to lobby for more interesting threads on AI that were not either polical or investor. The software and the products and the design are what I care about.
Wow, the fact Apple Music outperformed Spotify in streaming seems to have really struck a nerve.
That would explain all the excuses people are coming up to try and downplay the significance of this.
The fact that you have interpreted our reaction this way speaks volumes. There were a couple of terse comments on here about AM that were untrue, by those who spend their time on an Apple forum for God knows what reason.
However, a few us such as myself genuinely meant what we said. If iOS had a larger market share than Android it honestly wouldn’t mean anything to me.
That Apple has had more Drake streams than Spotify means little to me. Even if AM had 2X Spotify streams in total (for all artists), I wouldn’t care. I don’t use Apple products because their sales or user numbers are larger than the next guy. I use Apple’s products for design, reliability and support reasons. There were no nerves touched, just boring investor-related words read. I’m appalled you’d react this way. My comment was to lobby for more interesting threads on AI that were not either polical or investor. The software and the products and the design are what I care about!
Always interesting to see who responds first. If you didn’t think you were one of the “trolls” I directed my comment at, why the need to respond?
Wow, the fact Apple Music outperformed Spotify in streaming seems to have really struck a nerve.
That would explain all the excuses people are coming up to try and downplay the significance of this.
The fact that you have interpreted our reaction this way speaks volumes. There were a couple of terse comments on here about AM that were untrue, by those who spend their time on an Apple forum for God knows what reason.
However, a few us such as myself genuinely meant what we said. If iOS had a larger market share than Android it honestly wouldn’t mean anything to me.
That Apple has had more Drake streams than Spotify means little to me. Even if AM had 2X Spotify streams in total (for all artists), I wouldn’t care. I don’t use Apple products because their sales or user numbers are larger than the next guy. I use Apple’s products for design, reliability and support reasons. There were no nerves touched, just boring investor-related words read. I’m appalled you’d react this way. My comment was to lobby for more interesting threads on AI that were not either polical or investor. The software and the products and the design are what I care about!
Always interesting to see who responds first. If you didn’t think you were one of the “trolls” I directed my comment at, why the need to respond?
This is what it’s come to? We are using Drake now? Who cares who’s number 1 for streams, or whatever. The only metric that really matters is the quality, reliability, usability and feature set of a service. I couldn’t care less who has the most streams. I’m a user of Apple products, not a stockholder of them.
That's a baffling comment.
It's very newsworthy that Apple Music has significantly fewer subscribers but is attracting far more actual demand for an artist who is leading in streaming globally.
There are lots of "quality" services that went out of business because nobody cared to use them.
I think Ireland's comment was spot on.
I don't see anything baffling in it.
Shouldn't success in this market be judged on subscribers, revenues, total streams, the amount of people who listened to a stream etc rather than the people who listened to one particular record?
Is this like the TV where people can switch on for one particular show and then turn off? I get the idea that it isn't, as playlists are mentioned so isn't it correct to assume that if people were not listening to Drake, they were listening to something else? The numbers might be good for Drake but, the service?
Of course, I'm not part of the streaming generation so maybe I'm missing something obvious but if anything, I find the reply baffling, not the original comment.
Actually, I think you may have missed @corrections point, which is very significant for the future of both platforms. Whether you like him or not, Drake is one of the most significant artists being streamed today, and so he's a significant benchmark, though of course, not the only one.
The article points out that these are initial figures, and that Spotify may well pull ahead, which I would expect since it has more subscriber numbers. The other point is that Apple may have more subscribers who like Drake, though I don't think this would cause such a massive difference in the numbers.
Anyway, what is significant is that Apple pulled the largest streaming figures for his album despite having the smaller subscriber base.
That is very weird considering that streaming is a pretty generic service. But it's less weird when you consider other Apple's more-for-less successes, such as raking in all the profits in the mobile hardware/software markets despite having the smaller user base.
What did Apple Music do that got more people to actually stream the album on its release day? Why didn't Drake's following on Spotify engage as much? These are the questions Spotify will be asking itself.
Apple has the smaller subscriber base, but they have the more engaged subscriber base? Why is this? Is it ease of use of the Apple Music? (Can't be, because according to experts around here, Apple Music is unusable because Apple, in its infinite stupidity, has chosen to make it part of iTunes instead of a separate app). Is it because they are better at targeting likely Drake fans inside their smaller user base? Is it because Apple can bring to bear a massively connected ecosystem (artists microsites, Apple Music, Siri) to get the word out faster and more effectively?
These are important questions that Spotify will be looking into, because if they don't then Apple could trail behind in subscriber numbers forever, and still suck all the profits out of the streaming industry.
It was corrections' point that baffled me.
I am still lost as to why Drake is relevant in the bigger scheme of things. Obviously for Drake I can see why it is important but for the service?
Weren't people simply listening to something else while others were listening to Drake?
Where is the difference for the service? Drake won't be releasing a new record every week.
The only thing that I can see very clearly is that services need to convince subscribers to use them, then stick with them. I still can't see why one particular artist (available on both platforms) with one particular record is relevant in service terms.
If Spotify had 1,000 users and Apple had 500, and 400 of Apple's users streamed Drake but only 200 of Spotify users did the same, why is that important? I'm supposing that 100 Apple users and 800 Spotify users were simply listening to other stuff.
There is mention of promoting the stream which could clearly have an influence on snapshot results but I imagine those 800 users who didn't stream Drake in the snapshot could also stream it at a later date which would affect aggregate streams (good for Drake I imagine), but for the service?
Jesus, why is this brainless guy even here?
(I’m just asking an honest question. Don’t ban me.)
That’s not an honest question. That’s a biased, projecting and rude question.
You’re right. It’s rude. It’s still honest though since that’s what came to my mind.
His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many.
NO. My post boiled down to 'why is this 'record' relevant' especially when compared to Spotify from a service perspective? It's trying to get my head around it and I still can't.
It had nothing to do with marketshare at all but in an attempt to understand things I explained what would make sense, which touched on marketshare - and simply because the article mentioned the subscriber proportions. Nothing more. I even gave a very simple example to highlight the point and still I can't see what I'm supposed to be seeing.
You need to spend less time 'splainin', and more time understanding how business works.
I don't care about Drake one way or another, but the metric for streams is important from the standpoint of artists, and what their value to the market is.
I'm guessing that Apple Music subscribers sees a higher value for at least one artist than the subscribers of Spotify do, and considering that Apple Music trails Spotify in total listeners, by near a factor of two, I'm guessing that it is kind of an important metric. Throw in that Apple has quite a bit of new Audio devices coming out, plus a new round of iPhones, and I'm seeing yet more profitless days ahead for Spotify. Perhaps they can find a White Knight to take them over and sustain them.
I would also note how you often use an arcane metric to posit how effective Huawei is in the market, yet when it actually comes down to corporate metrics, they aren't doing all that well except in marketshare growth, mostly at Samsung's expense. That the growth comes with a lot of acquisition costs leading to low margins, seems to always get you 'sprainin" as well.
Here's a note, just for you.
Xiaomi, which you were so excited about because they were pronouncing that they would give back to the customer anything above 5% profit, just had an IPO.
Where last year there was talk of $100 B, this year, they hit the low end of new expectations; their IPO netted $4.7 B.
Oh yeah!
I see you are struggling.
Firstly, I have said two or three times why this could be good for Drake so this must just be filler:
"I don't care about Drake one way or another, but the metric for streams is important from the standpoint of artists, and what their value to the market is"
In short. I know. That's what I said. On more than one occasion.
Secondly, you say I should spend more time understanding how the business works but you yourself have no idea!:
"I'm guessing that Apple Music subscribers sees a higher value for at least one artist than the subscribers of Spotify do, and considering that Apple Music trails Spotify in total listeners, by near a factor of two, I'm guessing that it is kind of an important metric. Throw in that Apple has quite a bit of new Audio devices coming out, plus a new round of iPhones, and I'm seeing yet more profitless days ahead for Spotify. Perhaps they can find a White Knight to take them over and sustain them" So, while you have no idea about what you are saying (in spite of saying I should understand how things work) you somehow think that 'Apple Music Subscribers see higher value in at least one artist'.
That makes no sense whatsoever. None. Care to explain why a Spotify user wouldn't see the same value?
You struggle so much that you throw Huawei into the soup! Why? What arcane metric are you talking about? Please tell how Huawei aren't doing all that well?
Then you scrape the bottom of the barrel by throwing Xiaomi in too!
Ok. Please tell me where you've seen me excited about Xiaomi or the IPO. My position has been completely open minded. So go ahead and quote me. You must be making this up.
The upshot is you have not been able to answer ANY of the points I raised. In fact no one in this thread has.
Comments
Being number one at anything I should hope is not why any of us use Apple gear. Also, “quality” services going out of business? Is that why you want to shout about this number? Because were Apple in number two position with Drake streams you’d fear Apple Music may go out of business? Apple built the digital music industry with iPod and iTunes, and Apple Music is a music streaming service from this company which comes bundled on the home screen of every iOS device. We’re AM going out of business, considering the talent in the company, I’d be more concerned for Apple culture than the music service.
The real story here is why were Apple so slow on the uptake when it came to offering a music streaming service in the first place (institutional pride?), and why is Spotify, this app from a tiny Swedish company considered a better app by a lot of people? And when will Apple give modern users a dedicated AM app on the Mac?
Counting and even knowing the number of stones on a beach is boring. Appreciating the beauty of each one is another level.
I’ll reiterate for you: Drake? More Drake streams? This is what it’s come to?
His post basically boils down to “Market share number rules”. “The one who has the most market share wins”. He can just save his time by only typing this 2 sentences instead of God know how many.
How stupid one can be to type something like this?
What does this story have anything to do with how early or late Apple were to the streaming music market? Aren't you flogging a dead horse? And, an irrelevant one for this discussion?
And, why is winning a stream count akin to counting the number of stones on a beach? All the payments to the music artistes are after all based on some variation(s) of the stream count as a major factor.
You and I may not care for who Drake is or what is the quality of his music in comparison to artistes of yesteryears, but how does that detract from DED's factual observations about this particular streaming success on Apple Music?
It had nothing to do with marketshare at all but in an attempt to understand things I explained what would make sense, which touched on marketshare - and simply because the article mentioned the subscriber proportions. Nothing more. I even gave a very simple example to highlight the point and still I can't see what I'm supposed to be seeing.
We all know that this isn't the case but other streaming services won't take being beaten like this for long.
They'll all have the transcripts from the Apple Books case to study and replicate how Apple lost.
https://ti.to/thetechnorati/apple-summit-nyc
I don't care about Drake one way or another, but the metric for streams is important from the standpoint of artists, and what their value to the market is.
I'm guessing that Apple Music subscribers sees a higher value for at least one artist than the subscribers of Spotify do, and considering that Apple Music trails Spotify in total listeners, by near a factor of two, I'm guessing that it is kind of an important metric. Throw in that Apple has quite a bit of new Audio devices coming out, plus a new round of iPhones, and I'm seeing yet more profitless days ahead for Spotify. Perhaps they can find a White Knight to take them over and sustain them.
I would also note how you often use an arcane metric to posit how effective Huawei is in the market, yet when it actually comes down to corporate metrics, they aren't doing all that well except in marketshare growth, mostly at Samsung's expense. That the growth comes with a lot of acquisition costs leading to low margins, seems to always get you 'sprainin" as well.
Here's a note, just for you.
Xiaomi, which you were so excited about because they were pronouncing that they would give back to the customer anything above 5% profit, just had an IPO.
Where last year there was talk of $100 B, this year, they hit the low end of new expectations; their IPO netted $4.7 B.
Oh yeah!
Let me know when you have a blog, podcast, website, or "summit", and I'll give you a shot at being followed.
Until then, you are just another poster on AI, that is more often than not posting "why", than adding much insight to the discussion.
I didn’t miss it. A wildly popular artist on a mostly North American service is likely to break its global streaming record too.
That would explain all the excuses people are coming up to try and downplay the significance of this.
However, a few us such as myself genuinely meant what we said. If iOS had a larger market share than Android it honestly wouldn’t mean anything to me.
That Apple has had more Drake streams than Spotify means little to me. Even if AM had 2X Spotify streams in total (for all artists), I wouldn’t care. I don’t use Apple products because their sales or user numbers are larger than the next guy. I use Apple’s products for design, reliability and support reasons. There were no nerves touched, just boring investor-related words read. I’m appalled you’d react this way. My comment was to lobby for more interesting threads on AI that were not either polical or investor. The software and the products and the design are what I care about.
Always interesting to see who responds first. If you didn’t think you were one of the “trolls” I directed my comment at, why the need to respond?
Firstly, I have said two or three times why this could be good for Drake so this must just be filler:
"I don't care about Drake one way or another, but the metric for streams is important from the standpoint of artists, and what their value to the market is"
In short. I know. That's what I said. On more than one occasion.
Secondly, you say I should spend more time understanding how the business works but you yourself have no idea!:
"I'm guessing that Apple Music subscribers sees a higher value for at least one artist than the subscribers of Spotify do, and considering that Apple Music trails Spotify in total listeners, by near a factor of two, I'm guessing that it is kind of an important metric. Throw in that Apple has quite a bit of new Audio devices coming out, plus a new round of iPhones, and I'm seeing yet more profitless days ahead for Spotify. Perhaps they can find a White Knight to take them over and sustain them"
So, while you have no idea about what you are saying (in spite of saying I should understand how things work) you somehow think that 'Apple Music Subscribers see higher value in at least one artist'.
That makes no sense whatsoever. None. Care to explain why a Spotify user wouldn't see the same value?
You struggle so much that you throw Huawei into the soup! Why? What arcane metric are you talking about? Please tell how Huawei aren't doing all that well?
Then you scrape the bottom of the barrel by throwing Xiaomi in too!
Ok. Please tell me where you've seen me excited about Xiaomi or the IPO. My position has been completely open minded. So go ahead and quote me. You must be making this up.
The upshot is you have not been able to answer ANY of the points I raised. In fact no one in this thread has.