Apple Music falls from first to fifth in brand intimacy rankings

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 40
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 987member

    benji888 said:

    It’s really, extremely irritating to be playing a playlist/album in my car, go into store, come back, hook iPhone back up and it HAS LOST WHERE IT LEFT OFF!?!? It will either play the first song in my library (alphabetically), or an often played album.

    They actually fixed that a few major iOS versions ago... and now it's back to doing the same. It's really really annoying.
    Latkomuthuk_vanalingamchemengin
  • Reply 22 of 40
    designrdesignr Posts: 524member
    jungmark said:
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.

    And brand intimacy doesn't pay the bills. 
    Maybe.

    This "brand intimacy" is just another variation on "brand loyalty" and "brand affinity".

    When your brand is important enough to your customers that they a) stay/repeat, and b) recommend/recruit then, arguably, maybe something like "brand intimacy" does actually pay the bills.
    holmstockd
  • Reply 23 of 40
    FatmanFatman Posts: 305member
    I’m shocked Apple Music was ever #1? Pinterest moving to #1 is surprising, but I’m sure someone got paid off to make that happen - coincidentally in sync with their IPO.
    holmstockd
  • Reply 24 of 40
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,145member
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.
    You have said it way too many times.  Repetition doesn't make it any more valid.  The business case was solid then, and still is now.  Apple bought Beats for a number of reasons, and yes, headphones was one of them.  Unless you can provide some rationale for your assessment, you should really stop making it.  In all the years you've trotted out that opinion it has all been based on "I don't like Beats therefore Apple shouldn't have acquired them"  
    Well I’ll just give an example. There’s a show I watch on HBO and the music in the show is all 70s mellow rock. I decided to create a playlist of this music in Apple Music. It has about 70 songs or so all added one by one. A friend asked if I could share the playlist. They don’t subscribe to Apple Music so I went to re-create it in Spotify. First thing it did when I named the playlist was give me song suggestions to add to the playlist. Many of them were the songs in my Apple playlist but also some my Apple playlist didn’t have. To me that’s a really cool feature Apple Music should have. Heck even Pandora provides suggestions based on what you’re adding to a playlist. In this instance Spotify was offering suggestions based on the playlist title. Another thing: Spotify won’t let you add a song to a playlist if it’s already there. You get a message saying the song already exists. Apple Music doesn’t have that so I often end up with duplicates. Another thing: Spotify rarely suggested a song from a greatest hits album. On Apple Music that was usually the first thing I saw. In my opinion Apple Music is not as good as it could be. If Spotify had the ability to access Siri and you could play Spotify playlists on an Apple Watch I’m not sure how well Apple Music would be doing.
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 25 of 40
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,145member
    chasm said:
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.
    Good to know you’re still wrong. Let me direct you to the last few years’ of Apple’s financial statements and the growth of wearables ... let’s see how many billions more than three they’ve made ...
    The growth of wearables is mostly due to Apple Watch and AirPods. I can’t remember the last time Tim Cook mentioned Beats on an earnings call. Apple didn’t spend $3B for headphones known for crappy sound/quality (yes I know Beats has improved in those areas) that were just popular because athletes and rappers were paid to wear them. They bought beats for Jimmy Iovine, Trent Reznor etc. But are any of the Beats Music folks still there? Apple Music is run by legacy iTunes staff.
    Latkoelijahg
  • Reply 26 of 40
    I like Apple Music, however, I have a bug where when you are playing a song, the pause button doesn’t register. You have to tap it a dozen times or expand to album view and pause it there. It has been since my iPhone 7, iPhone X and now my XS so it’s not a hardware issue. But it is SUPER annoying. Anyone else got this problem?
    Latko
  • Reply 27 of 40
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.
    You have said it way too many times.  Repetition doesn't make it any more valid.  The business case was solid then, and still is now.  Apple bought Beats for a number of reasons, and yes, headphones was one of them.  Unless you can provide some rationale for your assessment, you should really stop making it.  In all the years you've trotted out that opinion it has all been based on "I don't like Beats therefore Apple shouldn't have acquired them"  
    Well I’ll just give an example. There’s a show I watch on HBO and the music in the show is all 70s mellow rock. I decided to create a playlist of this music in Apple Music. It has about 70 songs or so all added one by one. A friend asked if I could share the playlist. They don’t subscribe to Apple Music so I went to re-create it in Spotify. First thing it did when I named the playlist was give me song suggestions to add to the playlist. Many of them were the songs in my Apple playlist but also some my Apple playlist didn’t have. To me that’s a really cool feature Apple Music should have. Heck even Pandora provides suggestions based on what you’re adding to a playlist. In this instance Spotify was offering suggestions based on the playlist title. Another thing: Spotify won’t let you add a song to a playlist if it’s already there. You get a message saying the song already exists. Apple Music doesn’t have that so I often end up with duplicates. Another thing: Spotify rarely suggested a song from a greatest hits album. On Apple Music that was usually the first thing I saw. In my opinion Apple Music is not as good as it could be. If Spotify had the ability to access Siri and you could play Spotify playlists on an Apple Watch I’m not sure how well Apple Music would be doing.
    You just provided an example of why you think Spotify has better algorithms than Apple Music.  That isn't an example of a reason why you think the Beats deal was bad.  As I said, your only reasoning has ever been you don't like Beats.  You never have, and honestly I'm pretty sure you never will, put forth a logical reasoned explanation of why you think the deal was bad.  Heck I've never been the biggest fan of Beats sound, quality, or price.  But I'm not so biased that I can't recognize that Apple's purchase of Beats made terrific sense for the goals they had.   No other acquisition could have given them everything the got from the Beats deal.  Hindsight being 20/20, you're opinion is objectively wrong.  Subjectively, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
    AppleExposed
  • Reply 28 of 40
    vmarksvmarks Posts: 720editor
    deminsd said:
    chasm said:
    Talk about unscientific but ... I do think the deals Spotify has made with various cell-phone providers to offer the service for “free” (hahaha) as part of your smartphone agreement has hurt Apple Music in the eyes of the youth market. I’m not sure if more exclusives will fix that, so I think Apple needs to make more deals with carriers as a way of offering users a choice.
    Isn't Apple Music a "free" perk from the #1 provider in the US (Verizon)?  
    Only on some plans. For the plan I have, they want to offer it for a few months, with the subscription kicking in at full price afterwards.
  • Reply 29 of 40
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,145member
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.
    You have said it way too many times.  Repetition doesn't make it any more valid.  The business case was solid then, and still is now.  Apple bought Beats for a number of reasons, and yes, headphones was one of them.  Unless you can provide some rationale for your assessment, you should really stop making it.  In all the years you've trotted out that opinion it has all been based on "I don't like Beats therefore Apple shouldn't have acquired them"  
    Well I’ll just give an example. There’s a show I watch on HBO and the music in the show is all 70s mellow rock. I decided to create a playlist of this music in Apple Music. It has about 70 songs or so all added one by one. A friend asked if I could share the playlist. They don’t subscribe to Apple Music so I went to re-create it in Spotify. First thing it did when I named the playlist was give me song suggestions to add to the playlist. Many of them were the songs in my Apple playlist but also some my Apple playlist didn’t have. To me that’s a really cool feature Apple Music should have. Heck even Pandora provides suggestions based on what you’re adding to a playlist. In this instance Spotify was offering suggestions based on the playlist title. Another thing: Spotify won’t let you add a song to a playlist if it’s already there. You get a message saying the song already exists. Apple Music doesn’t have that so I often end up with duplicates. Another thing: Spotify rarely suggested a song from a greatest hits album. On Apple Music that was usually the first thing I saw. In my opinion Apple Music is not as good as it could be. If Spotify had the ability to access Siri and you could play Spotify playlists on an Apple Watch I’m not sure how well Apple Music would be doing.
    You just provided an example of why you think Spotify has better algorithms than Apple Music.  That isn't an example of a reason why you think the Beats deal was bad.  As I said, your only reasoning has ever been you don't like Beats.  You never have, and honestly I'm pretty sure you never will, put forth a logical reasoned explanation of why you think the deal was bad.  Heck I've never been the biggest fan of Beats sound, quality, or price.  But I'm not so biased that I can't recognize that Apple's purchase of Beats made terrific sense for the goals they had.   No other acquisition could have given them everything the got from the Beats deal.  Hindsight being 20/20, you're opinion is objectively wrong.  Subjectively, it's your opinion and you're welcome to it.
    I think the deal was bad because what did it get Apple? A streaming music service that is inferior to the competition? Headphones that they didn’t need? 
  • Reply 30 of 40
    holmstockdholmstockd Posts: 74member
    Johan42 said:
    vonbrick said:
    red oak said:
    LOL.  Okay!   
    Would it still be as funny if Apple Music had taken the top spot in this study?
    deminsd said:
    chasm said:
    Talk about unscientific but ... I do think the deals Spotify has made with various cell-phone providers to offer the service for “free” (hahaha) as part of your smartphone agreement has hurt Apple Music in the eyes of the youth market. I’m not sure if more exclusives will fix that, so I think Apple needs to make more deals with carriers as a way of offering users a choice.
    Isn't Apple Music a "free" perk from the #1 provider in the US (Verizon)?  
    urahara said:
    red oak said:
    vonbrick said:
    red oak said:
    LOL.  Okay!   
    Would it still be as funny if Apple Music had taken the top spot in this study?
    No
    But it took the 1st spot in 2018.
    Waste of time, guys. These people are blinded by the Apple logo. It’s like a religion to them.
    Said better twice, I had AM, hated it, Spotify provides more to my family. To each their own, but spot on with the "religion" aspect. You are right. 
    chemengin
  • Reply 31 of 40

    ERSI (European Research Survey Institute) has the determent for 2019 that the following services and products has the best product recognition after 10,000 individual participants in their survey (survey taken in New Zealand, Netherland, Sweden, Palo Alto CA, Canada [Ontario region] )   

    1)      Yahoo

    2)      Myspace

    3)      Blackberry

    4)      Napster

    5)      MapQuest

    Apple Music Did not even appear in the top 5 of this survey.   

    (Survey me have a margin of error of 100%)

  • Reply 32 of 40
    NotsofastNotsofast Posts: 407member
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.
    LOL.  That's why you're not in the business world.  Apple's purchase of Beats was a genius financial move.  It allowed them to move from zero in streaming to #2 in the entire world in a remarkably short period of time with now about $6 BILLION in revenue each year, and growing rapidly, from just Apple Music, with margins over a billion dollars a year.  So, just from profits from Apple Music, Apple has more than paid for the entire Beats acquisition.  But, of course, the value of Apple Music to the entire Apple ecosystem goes far beyond that with increased hardware sales, customer lock in, etc.  

    Now add the Beats line of headphones and now you'll realize why the financial experts are bowing to Tim Cook.  With their acquisition of Beats, Apple has now grown to be the largest seller of wireless headphones IN THE WORLD.  Beats headphones have a huge profit margin and under Apple's ownership, Beats has grown to own over 70% of the entire worldwide market of premium headphones.  Think about that.  Just from the headphones, Apple has paid for the Beats purchase long ago, and it is an ever growing cash cow of profits.


    edited May 2 AppleExposed
  • Reply 33 of 40
    rogifan_newrogifan_new Posts: 4,145member
    Notsofast said:
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.
    LOL.  That's why you're not in the business world.  Apple's purchase of Beats was a genius financial move.  It allowed them to move from zero in streaming to #2 in the entire world in a remarkably short period of time with now about $6 BILLION in revenue each year, and growing rapidly, from just Apple Music, with margins over a billion dollars a year.  So, just from profits from Apple Music, Apple has more than paid for the entire Beats acquisition.  But, of course, the value of Apple Music to the entire Apple ecosystem goes far beyond that with increased hardware sales, customer lock in, etc.  

    Now add the Beats line of headphones and now you'll realize why the financial experts are bowing to Tim Cook.  With their acquisition of Beats, Apple has now grown to be the largest seller of wireless headphones IN THE WORLD.  Beats headphones have a huge profit margin and under Apple's ownership, Beats has grown to own over 70% of the entire worldwide market of premium headphones.  Think about that.  Just from the headphones, Apple has paid for the Beats purchase long ago, and it is an ever growing cash cow of profits.


    What’s your source for Apple Music making $1B a year?
  • Reply 34 of 40
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 2,430member
    There are many choices for music delivery and consumption, and choices are good. I once attended a conference where a presenter had all the means of music delivery from the past, dating back to simple printed sheet music that was performed live. Then player pianos, Edison-esque devicies, on to RCA players, radio, phonorecords, vinyl, reel to reel, cassettes, walkman, 8 tracks, then CDs and DVDs. Now...all at and end with streaming. Made me reflect. At the end of the day, a consumer must decide how much to pay for the value they receive. I have plenty of music to choose from for free, and it suits my needs. I don't find the for-pay services valuable - but of course YMMV greatly. Music enthusiasts, audiophiles, musicians will find my opinion outrageous and funny. "You sit through ads?" Yep. And I just discovered Google Play, a free service for my modest CD collection to follow me. 

    I can see revisiting this if/when Apple bundles their growing services. I can see $99/yr for all of AppleTV+, News, and Apple Music. For the family. But that ain't gonna happen. 

    Y
    M
    M
    V
    edited May 2
  • Reply 35 of 40
    davgregdavgreg Posts: 421member
    I love Spotify and feel more connected to it. Better algorithms, better recommendations. Knows me better. My AM year expired in April, didn’t care to renew. 

    👍🏻
    I use iTunes- do not rent my music and think artists should be paid properly, but Spotify has better sound quality than Apple Music. Apple streams lossy, compressed files.
    designr
  • Reply 36 of 40
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,375unconfirmed, member
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.

    So you're gonna remove the multi-billion dollar Beats Headphone brand in your argument? Talk about selective. You sound like an iKnockoff Knight. 
  • Reply 37 of 40
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,375unconfirmed, member

    Johan42 said:
    vonbrick said:
    red oak said:
    LOL.  Okay!   
    Would it still be as funny if Apple Music had taken the top spot in this study?
    deminsd said:
    chasm said:
    Talk about unscientific but ... I do think the deals Spotify has made with various cell-phone providers to offer the service for “free” (hahaha) as part of your smartphone agreement has hurt Apple Music in the eyes of the youth market. I’m not sure if more exclusives will fix that, so I think Apple needs to make more deals with carriers as a way of offering users a choice.
    Isn't Apple Music a "free" perk from the #1 provider in the US (Verizon)?  
    urahara said:
    red oak said:
    vonbrick said:
    red oak said:
    LOL.  Okay!   
    Would it still be as funny if Apple Music had taken the top spot in this study?
    No
    But it took the 1st spot in 2018.
    Waste of time, guys. These people are blinded by the Apple logo. It’s like a religion to them.

    And it's an obsession to you.
  • Reply 38 of 40
    AppleExposedAppleExposed Posts: 1,375unconfirmed, member
    Fatman said:
    I’m shocked Apple Music was ever #1? Pinterest moving to #1 is surprising, but I’m sure someone got paid off to make that happen - coincidentally in sync with their IPO.
    Yeah Pinterest being #1 is odd.

    elijahg said:
    chasm said:
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.
    Good to know you’re still wrong. Let me direct you to the last few years’ of Apple’s financial statements and the growth of wearables ... let’s see how many billions more than three they’ve made ...
    The Watch and AirPods along with their H1 chip came out of the Beats acquisition? Who knew?

    WHERE exactly did the poster claim this?

    Beats is one of the biggest wearables brands in the world, most likely #2 after Apple.


    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.
    You have said it way too many times.  Repetition doesn't make it any more valid.  The business case was solid then, and still is now.  Apple bought Beats for a number of reasons, and yes, headphones was one of them.  Unless you can provide some rationale for your assessment, you should really stop making it.  In all the years you've trotted out that opinion it has all been based on "I don't like Beats therefore Apple shouldn't have acquired them"  
    Well I’ll just give an example. There’s a show I watch on HBO and the music in the show is all 70s mellow rock. I decided to create a playlist of this music in Apple Music. It has about 70 songs or so all added one by one. A friend asked if I could share the playlist. They don’t subscribe to Apple Music so I went to re-create it in Spotify. First thing it did when I named the playlist was give me song suggestions to add to the playlist. Many of them were the songs in my Apple playlist but also some my Apple playlist didn’t have. To me that’s a really cool feature Apple Music should have. Heck even Pandora provides suggestions based on what you’re adding to a playlist. In this instance Spotify was offering suggestions based on the playlist title. Another thing: Spotify won’t let you add a song to a playlist if it’s already there. You get a message saying the song already exists. Apple Music doesn’t have that so I often end up with duplicates. Another thing: Spotify rarely suggested a song from a greatest hits album. On Apple Music that was usually the first thing I saw. In my opinion Apple Music is not as good as it could be. If Spotify had the ability to access Siri and you could play Spotify playlists on an Apple Watch I’m not sure how well Apple Music would be doing.
    Do you mean Apple Music didn't have these songs? Apple Music has a wider catalog. 

    chasm said:
    Like I’ve said many times Apple wasted $3B on Beats. And don’t throw headphones at me; that’s not why Apple bought Beats.
    Good to know you’re still wrong. Let me direct you to the last few years’ of Apple’s financial statements and the growth of wearables ... let’s see how many billions more than three they’ve made ...
    The growth of wearables is mostly due to Apple Watch and AirPods. I can’t remember the last time Tim Cook mentioned Beats on an earnings call. Apple didn’t spend $3B for headphones known for crappy sound/quality (yes I know Beats has improved in those areas) that were just popular because athletes and rappers were paid to wear them. They bought beats for Jimmy Iovine, Trent Reznor etc. But are any of the Beats Music folks still there? Apple Music is run by legacy iTunes staff.

    "The growth of wearables is mostly due to Apple Watch and AirPods."

    And Beats.

    " I can’t remember the last time Tim Cook mentioned Beats on an earnings call."

    WHY IN THE WORLD would he do this? You're like the people who think Apple is failing because they don't unveil every damn number.


    "just popular because athletes and rappers were paid to wear them."

    NOPE. You're just repeating what the iKnockoff Knights tell you to, you know, those guys that collectively repeat the same memes and call Apple users "sheep".
    Rappers/Singers/DJS/Athletes wear them because they want to. Do you think everything a celebrity owns is a sponsorship? I remember Iovine saying Beats marketing budget one year was $0.

    ZERO-FUC*ING-DOLLARS!!

    Ridiculous how Apple and only Apple is held different standards and logic.


  • Reply 39 of 40
    benji888benji888 Posts: 114member
    elijahg said:

    benji888 said:

    It’s really, extremely irritating to be playing a playlist/album in my car, go into store, come back, hook iPhone back up and it HAS LOST WHERE IT LEFT OFF!?!? It will either play the first song in my library (alphabetically), or an often played album.

    They actually fixed that a few major iOS versions ago... and now it's back to doing the same. It's really really annoying.
    I don’t recall this...perhaps it worked for a while during the time I wasn’t subscribed, (from Oct. 2017- last month). ...in any case I need to leave them feedback...again.
  • Reply 40 of 40
    elijahgelijahg Posts: 987member

    WHERE exactly did the poster claim this?

    Beats is one of the biggest wearables brands in the world, most likely #2 after Apple.
    Here.
    chasm said:
    Good to know you’re still wrong. Let me direct you to the last few years’ of Apple’s financial statements and the
    growth of wearables ... let’s see how many billions more than three they’ve made ...
Sign In or Register to comment.