Cook says Apple not in music streaming for the money, touts human content curation
Apple CEO Tim Cook recently sat down to discuss Apple Music and its place in the burgeoning music streaming world, once again touting the service's human content curation as a key benefit over competitors like Spotify.
Speaking with Fast Company at his C-suite office at Apple Park, Cook expressed concern that the streaming industry's increasing reliance on song-suggesting computer algorithms is sucking the soul out of music.
"We worry about the humanity being drained out of music, about it becoming a bits-and-bytes kind of world instead of the art and craft," Cook said.
With tens of billions of dollars pouring in every quarter, and swelling ranks of streaming customers built on a healthy installed user base, Apple has the latitude to take a more philosophical view of music.
"We're not in it for the money," Cook said.
The executive was careful not to mention any one service in his critique, but the comments were clearly defined to paint Apple as a leader in the field. Contrasting the human approach to curation systems traditionally used by Spotify.
Apple executives, including SVP of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue and Beats co-founder Jimmy Iovine, have consistently lauded Apple Music's human curators as a tangible leg-up on the competition. In July, reports claimed Apple Music's subscriber count overtook that of Spotify in the U.S., a considerable feat given Apple was late to the streaming music party.
Apple Music users are treated to a customized playlist of recommended content, as well as a number of regularly updated genre-based playlists that include songs hand picked by human editors. Also featured prominently in the corresponding Apple Music app are new album selections, interviews with artists, a live radio station in Beats 1 and other humanized elements.
Cook is an obvious devotee of Apple's service, telling Fast Company that music is a key component in his life. The Apple chief has noted a fondness of music in past interviews, and repeated those platitudes in the interview published this week.
"I couldn't make it through a workout without music," Cook says. "Music inspires, it motivates. It's also the thing at night that helps quiet me. I think it's better than any medicine."
Spotify, too, is turning to human curation as a means of differentiation. The firm now fields a number of programmed playlists, including popular brands like Rap Caviar, to draw in and maintain subscriber numbers. According to a prospectus filing issued prior to Spotify's initial public offering, the service programs about 31 percent of all listening.
Amplified efforts in curation has led to poaching, with Spotify nabbing Apple Music's former R&B curator Carl Chery in April.
Cook's commentary was included as part of a comprehensive profile of Spotify founder Daniel Ek, who is looking to take the streaming firm to new heights on the back of its successful April IPO.
Speaking with Fast Company at his C-suite office at Apple Park, Cook expressed concern that the streaming industry's increasing reliance on song-suggesting computer algorithms is sucking the soul out of music.
"We worry about the humanity being drained out of music, about it becoming a bits-and-bytes kind of world instead of the art and craft," Cook said.
With tens of billions of dollars pouring in every quarter, and swelling ranks of streaming customers built on a healthy installed user base, Apple has the latitude to take a more philosophical view of music.
"We're not in it for the money," Cook said.
The executive was careful not to mention any one service in his critique, but the comments were clearly defined to paint Apple as a leader in the field. Contrasting the human approach to curation systems traditionally used by Spotify.
Apple executives, including SVP of Internet Software and Services Eddy Cue and Beats co-founder Jimmy Iovine, have consistently lauded Apple Music's human curators as a tangible leg-up on the competition. In July, reports claimed Apple Music's subscriber count overtook that of Spotify in the U.S., a considerable feat given Apple was late to the streaming music party.
Apple Music users are treated to a customized playlist of recommended content, as well as a number of regularly updated genre-based playlists that include songs hand picked by human editors. Also featured prominently in the corresponding Apple Music app are new album selections, interviews with artists, a live radio station in Beats 1 and other humanized elements.
Cook is an obvious devotee of Apple's service, telling Fast Company that music is a key component in his life. The Apple chief has noted a fondness of music in past interviews, and repeated those platitudes in the interview published this week.
"I couldn't make it through a workout without music," Cook says. "Music inspires, it motivates. It's also the thing at night that helps quiet me. I think it's better than any medicine."
Spotify, too, is turning to human curation as a means of differentiation. The firm now fields a number of programmed playlists, including popular brands like Rap Caviar, to draw in and maintain subscriber numbers. According to a prospectus filing issued prior to Spotify's initial public offering, the service programs about 31 percent of all listening.
Amplified efforts in curation has led to poaching, with Spotify nabbing Apple Music's former R&B curator Carl Chery in April.
Cook's commentary was included as part of a comprehensive profile of Spotify founder Daniel Ek, who is looking to take the streaming firm to new heights on the back of its successful April IPO.
Comments
I have noticed that both Spotify and Apple have trouble with people like me who enjoy very diverse bands. I like Devo, I like Incredible String Band, I like Harold Budd, I like They Might Be Giants, I like Charlie Parker, I like Tiny Tim.
It's like that scene in Star Trek (or Doctor Who before it) where the star feeds a computer a bunch of logical conundrums and it explodes.
Keep pressing that dislike button and providing written feedback when you have time ... the Apple Music team do read the fan mail!
That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
After Superstars delivered large audiences content to hearing mostly the same stuff over and over, the same thing was applied to other formats.
In streaming land, the tech geeks think they can predict what you will like from a relatively short playlist. That may work for some, but not for everyone- especially those with broad and eclectic tastes. We would all be better off returning to a more regionalized playlist where local artists and favorites can gain traction before breaking out nationally.
The one thing that bothers me the most about streaming from whomever is that the artists are not adequately compensated for their work. Peter Frampton recently tweeted this: "For 55 million streams of, ‘Baby I Love Your Way’, I got $1,700".
Apple should pay artists more or get out of streaming.
Here is the Frampton tweet you mention:
https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/apple-signs-thousands-of-independent-labels-in-royalty-deal.html
Something seems off here. I recall Frampton was a long time holdout to letting his music go digital. Perhaps he’s trying to make things appear worse than they are to justify his holdout stance. Going by The Times’ figures he would have gotten $110,000 for 55 million streams (on Apple Music).
I think I read that Apple was trying to negotiate their rates down, so maybe this isn’t accurate, but I doubt they dropped as far as Frampton claims in that tweet.
As far as having humans in the music curation role is concerned, Apple is obviously promoting it as being significant because that’s where they’ve invested their money and are trying to differentiate from other streaming vendors. I think I love music as much as Tim Cook does, it’s a huge part of my life, it’s very personal, but Apple’s music curation has never influenced my musical choices or discovery process in any way. No big deal. It’s not a factor for me, but if other folks find it useful, good for them. No harm, no foul. Rock on.
So, is there an argument that if Apple was the best platform for artists to make money on streaming music would this lead to even higher revenue and higher profit from various device sales? We know Apple's services segment is massive in its own right, so I assume they're making a profit there but, let's say (very hypothetically) that Apple could pledge to make Apple Music a break-even business with all additional proceeds per quarter are distributed to artists, could this drive artists to use and recommend Apple Music and Apple devices without Apple ever having to sign them up as spokesman or send them swag; and if this could happen would that not also then drive artists to Apple Music and Apple devices?
Now, Apple Music is also on Android, which may be a hold over because of Beats, but why not just kill it when they created Apple Music as they've done with plenty of other apps over the years? If Apple Music could be a driver for more device sales because artists can't help but be drawn to and promote the platform, would killing the app on Google Play then also help get people to jump to the iPhone?
tl;dr: Could Apple help others profit as a means to profit even more themselves?
But theyre a business.
And the whole hole point of business is to make a profit.
Lets have a bit more honesty and a little less of whatever this is.
If that’s indeed true, why does HomePod not support Spotify and why does Siri not accept third party music streaming services? Correct... to push ‘m out.