I am an amazon prime member and started using their music service 3-4 years ago due to the revamp of itunes and constant icloud capacity notifications. By the time apple music came out it was too late for me as prime does what they do anyway and its just one of the many prime benefits. If Jobs was here, Bezos would be #2. But that didn't happen. I feel really sad for whats happened to apple in the last 10 years.
You hate Apple. We get it. You didn't have to tell us twice.
Never ceases to amaze me how many Amazon Prime subscribers there are. People paying to use a retailer that I actively avoid.
I shop at Amazon enough so it's worth it. There are some things that you just can't get locally. You also get access to their video service and limited music. Many items get delivered on the same day. If you avoid Amazon then it's not for you.
Prime seems to be Amazons "iPhone". They keep making it more and more attractive. I think they acquired Whole Foods for this reason alone. Prime members get exclusive discounts at this expensive store.
This is why Spotify is in such trouble, and their only long term hope is to get acquired. Despite people trying to defend their music streaming service as somehow superior, it is essentially a "commoditized" business where the primary differentiator for most people is price. Spotify would lose half its 200 Million subscribers who get it for free if they had to start paying, ditto with Amazon. Apple Music has the most tracks and is in the most countries, but at the end of the day, 99% of what anyone wants is on every music service.
Problem for Spotify is that Amazon, Apple, and Google can leverage their music services to add value to their other revenue streams, e.g., Amazon uses it to make their incrreasing Prime Membership fees more palatable. Spotify has lost hundreds of millions but it can't raise prices in a "commoditized" industry to offset those costs. That's why it is desperately trying to get exclusive podcasts, a likely fail in an effort to build another revenue stream. It's also why Spotify hurts artists by paying them about half of what Apple does, and why Spotify is desperately trying to use governments to go after Apple to slow down competition until it can be sold. I wonder what their attack will be against Amazon??
Buy a clue dude. Spotify is just fine and making a profit now and growing fast. It’s also hands-down the best streaming service out there for sub-Hifi audio quality, best algorithms for curation of all of them, best interface, best 3rd party support, best in ease of use, most reliable, largest library... It’s the most integrated service on Hifi components, has the largest industry acceptance, the largest advertising base, largest subscriber base and is king of the hill for a reason.
You are completely full of shit with a hate on for Spotify for some reason.
LMAO! Spotify sheep is here
All that said, the profit may not last. The company is forecasting a loss of €50 to €100 million (about $57 to $113 million) next quarter and €200 to €360 million (about $227 to $409 million) over the full year.
I am an amazon prime member and started using their music service 3-4 years ago due to the revamp of itunes and constant icloud capacity notifications. By the time apple music came out it was too late for me as prime does what they do anyway and its just one of the many prime benefits. If Jobs was here, Bezos would be #2. But that didn't happen. I feel really sad for whats happened to apple in the last 10 years.
You hate Apple. We get it. You didn't have to tell us twice.
Never ceases to amaze me how many Amazon Prime subscribers there are. People paying to use a retailer that I actively avoid.
I shop at Amazon enough so it's worth it. There are some things that you just can't get locally. You also get access to their video service and limited music. Many items get delivered on the same day. If you avoid Amazon then it's not for you.
You can’t get things locally because they have actively run the mom and pop stores out of business in quite a few markets. Because they have no desire to make a profit they can’t complete.
Never ceases to amaze me how many Amazon Prime subscribers there are. People paying to use a retailer that I actively avoid.
I shop at Amazon enough so it's worth it. There are some things that you just can't get locally. You also get access to their video service and limited music. Many items get delivered on the same day. If you avoid Amazon then it's not for you.
You can’t get things locally because they have actively run the mom and pop stores out of business in quite a few markets. Because they have no desire to make a profit they can’t complete.
Before Amazon it was Walmart. Too many small communities didn't understand the harm that came from welcoming a huge retailer to their little town before the damage was already done.
Never ceases to amaze me how many Amazon Prime subscribers there are. People paying to use a retailer that I actively avoid.
You are not the only one who actively avoids them. Not even sure they would be called a “retailer”. There are serious doubts that amazon is good for the economy long term.
Long term I suspect they are terrible for the economy. Once they have crushed all of the competition they can increase their prices dramatically and the consumer will have little to no choice but to pay the higher pricing.
But for the moment, their relatively low pricing and fast shipping, mixed in with their brilliant customer service has me hooked!
From my understanding of the article, they are counting the free tier you get with Amazon Prime as soon as you try it out for the 1st time. I too have it (because of being a Prime member) and have used it once or twice - I like how they will automatically give you the mp3s for whatever CD you buy from them.....
THAT BEING SAID... I use Apple Music, and not because I am an Apple fan (which of course I am) but because I listen to mostly live music, either music I record live, music off of archive.org, or music I purchase from livedownloads.com, nugs.net (same thing) etc. Apple Music has unparalleled upload and match and host in cloud that NO ONE else offers (Google kind of did at one point with a limit of 50,000 tracks but that went away when they switched too youtube music), and with a limit of 100,000 songs it works great. While I do have music OUTSIDE of iTunes (in FLAC files, etc) I use subsonic to stream that outside the home. Spotify's limit is 10,000 songs in your library.
And Sorry @Rain22, I understand you LOVE Spotify, and my friends LOVE the playlist and intelligence of Spotify (personally I came to Apple Music the MOG > Beats > Apple Music route so I disagree about the algorithms - MOG was the best and that is why I followed that path), but what @Notsofast said is true - Spotify can't make money and compete on the same level with companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple who are doing exactly what @notsofast said, and yes Spotify just made its first profit ever this last year, but expects to lose 200-360 Million Euros in 2019, has a shrinking growth rate, and will indeed need to be swallowed up by someone eventually. Do your research....
Again, I would not doubt I am one of the people counted for Amazon Music, and I NEVER listen to it anymore....
Also remember Apple went from 50 million subscribers to 60 million in just the last 3 months and is seriously outpacing Spotify on growth rate, and has no free tier.
From my understanding of the article, they are counting the free tier you get with Amazon Prime as soon as you try it out for the 1st time. I too have it (because of being a Prime member) and have used it once or twice... Again, I would not doubt I am one of the people counted for Amazon Music, and I NEVER listen to it anymore....
Also remember Apple went from 50 million subscribers to 60 million in just the last 3 months and is seriously outpacing Spotify on growth rate, and has no free tier.
Apple still has a free three-month Apple Music tier don't they, and I would assume those folks are counted as subscribers too despite not (yet) paying anything for it. Student subscribers get 6 months for free, and just $6/mo it they decide to start paying for their subscription when the time comes. They also almost certainly count the "subscribers" who receive the service as a value-add "free" from some cell carriers, for example with certain Verizon plans.
FWIW you must at least be a Prime subscriber to even enjoy the included truncated Amazon Music tier so not exactly considered free when the least expensive way to get it will cost you $120/yr. I wouldn't go so far as to claim anyone here is trolling simply for expressing their preference for a "not-Apple" music provider Everyone else doesn't have to lose for Apple to be successful. Apple is doing pretty well for themselves.
This is why Spotify is in such trouble, and their only long term hope is to get acquired. Despite people trying to defend their music streaming service as somehow superior, it is essentially a "commoditized" business where the primary differentiator for most people is price. Spotify would lose half its 200 Million subscribers who get it for free if they had to start paying, ditto with Amazon. Apple Music has the most tracks and is in the most countries, but at the end of the day, 99% of what anyone wants is on every music service.
Problem for Spotify is that Amazon, Apple, and Google can leverage their music services to add value to their other revenue streams, e.g., Amazon uses it to make their incrreasing Prime Membership fees more palatable. Spotify has lost hundreds of millions but it can't raise prices in a "commoditized" industry to offset those costs. That's why it is desperately trying to get exclusive podcasts, a likely fail in an effort to build another revenue stream. It's also why Spotify hurts artists by paying them about half of what Apple does, and why Spotify is desperately trying to use governments to go after Apple to slow down competition until it can be sold. I wonder what their attack will be against Amazon??
Buy a clue dude. Spotify is just fine and making a profit now and growing fast. It’s also hands-down the best streaming service out there for sub-Hifi audio quality, best algorithms for curation of all of them, best interface, best 3rd party support, best in ease of use, most reliable, largest library... It’s the most integrated service on Hifi components, has the largest industry acceptance, the largest advertising base, largest subscriber base and is king of the hill for a reason.
You are completely full of shit with a hate on for Spotify for some reason.
Apple still has a free three-month Apple Music tier don't they, and I would assume those folks are counted as subscribers too despite not (yet) paying anything for it. Student subscribers get 6 months for free, and just $6/mo it they decide to start paying for their subscription when the time comes. They also almost certainly count the "subscribers" who receive the service as a value-add "free" from some cell carriers, for example with certain Verizon plans.
FWIW you must at least be a Prime subscriber to even enjoy the included truncated Amazon Music tier so not exactly considered free when the least expensive way to get it will cost you $120/yr. I wouldn't go so far as to claim anyone here is trolling simply for expressing their preference for a "not-Apple" music provider Everyone else doesn't have to lose for Apple to be successful. Apple is doing pretty well for themselves.
Correct. Apple has a 3 month free to try. It is not counted towards their subscribers though, see here: https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-music-overtakes-spotify-in-u-s-subscribers-11554475924 The 6 months free for students kicked in yesterday lol, so I doubt that works into any figures anyway. It is $5 a month, not $6. Both Spotify and Amazon have student tiers that are less expensive. Spotify's is the exact same $5, as is Amazon's, so not quite sure what stating anything about student pricing subscriptions has anything to do with anything.
Yes, I am SURE if you get free from Verizon you are counted. I am sure that explains part of their growth in the last 6 months (Apple's - it might explain the quick jump from 50 to 60 million, since they coincide with the timeframe). I would imagine that translates to the student pricing for Verizon (if we are trying to get revenues for Apple, Apple is probably paid the student pricing rate by Verizon).
Don't disagree that Amazon Prime is not "free". The point I was making is that just because you are an Amazon Prime member (which I am) and you pay Amazon $120 a year (for shipping, movies, and yes, a "free" tier of music) does not mean I ever use it. But it is counted by Amazon as part of the growth, the whole point of this article...
I was referring specifically to @rain22 insofar as as trolling due to their insane rant extolling the wonderful virtues of Spotify and how it is so strong and the king yada yada. Not saying Spotify is going out of business tomorrow, but it is certainly not on solid ground, and the statement about it not being sustainable standalone is probably true in the long term. Spotify has shown ONE quarter ever of turning a profit, and it's growth has slowed and it expects to lose in the hundred's of millions of Euros this coming year...
From my understanding of the article, they are counting the free tier you get with Amazon Prime as soon as you try it out for the 1st time. I too have it (because of being a Prime member) and have used it once or twice... Again, I would not doubt I am one of the people counted for Amazon Music, and I NEVER listen to it anymore....
Also remember Apple went from 50 million subscribers to 60 million in just the last 3 months and is seriously outpacing Spotify on growth rate, and has no free tier.
Apple still has a free three-month Apple Music tier don't they, and I would assume those folks are counted as subscribers too despite not (yet) paying anything for it.
Apple has in fact stated that number is for paid subscribers. Nice assumption though. It seems everyone wants to act as if Apple is somehow padding their numbers - more than likely because they can't stomach the idea of Apple being successful at anything. Someone else was trying to argue that number also counted all family members using a family membership, when Apple clearly states 60 million paid subscriptions and not paid users.
The fact is, Amazon is counting their free tier because even that tier sits behind a subscription wall. So anyone who has a Prime membership and an Alexa device, and asks Alexa to "play music", they are counted as part of that free tier. I'm not dissing Amazon, it's great they have that free service to make Alexa devices more useful.
From my understanding of the article, they are counting the free tier you get with Amazon Prime as soon as you try it out for the 1st time. I too have it (because of being a Prime member) and have used it once or twice... Again, I would not doubt I am one of the people counted for Amazon Music, and I NEVER listen to it anymore....
Also remember Apple went from 50 million subscribers to 60 million in just the last 3 months and is seriously outpacing Spotify on growth rate, and has no free tier.
Apple still has a free three-month Apple Music tier don't they, and I would assume those folks are counted as subscribers too despite not (yet) paying anything for it.
Apple has in fact stated that number is for paid subscribers. Nice assumption though. It seems everyone wants to act as if Apple is somehow padding their numbers - more than likely because they can't stomach the idea of Apple being successful at anything. Someone else was trying to argue that number also counted all family members using a family membership, when Apple clearly states 60 million paid subscriptions and not paid users.
The fact is, Amazon is counting their free tier because even that tier sits behind a subscription wall. So anyone who has a Prime membership and an Alexa device, and asks Alexa to "play music", they are counted as part of that free tier. I'm not dissing Amazon, it's great they have that free service to make Alexa devices more useful.
Where did Apple state that? Not saying they haven't but the only thing I've seen reported is "according to people familiar with the matter", same as what this article uses as a source instead of statements from the players themselves. In fact if you actually read the AI article completely you would have seen this disclaimer: "It isn't clear if the Financial Timessubscriber numbers include trial subscriptions to the premium services."
As for Amazon if their music was "free" as you keep repeating it is then you wouldn't have to pay at least $120 a year to access even the abridged version of it.
EDIT: I'm curious what "people" would have the factual PAID subscriber numbers for Apple and Amazon and others. Apparently they are not official numbers meant for disclosure so is there some insider who moves between all those companies and privy to the accounting? Perhaps a licensing agency executive tasked with verifying the money owed to artists and content owners by each of the streaming services is the best I could come up with unless they're simply educated guesses by an analyst.
Never ceases to amaze me how many Amazon Prime subscribers there are. People paying to use a retailer that I actively avoid.
I avoid them as well... Everyone offers free shipping these days so the Prime 2-day isn't a big deal anymore. Besides half the stuff you attempt to buy on Amazon, comes from some other source, and those products are not guaranteed by Amazon, which is how and why counterfeiting is so rampant on their site. (Although I believe Amazon just lost a lawsuit, so they may in fact have to start cracking down on those Marketplace shops.)
I suspect Amazon is over-reaching and will be in for a rude awakening at some point as people become more comfortable shopping online and drifting towards other retailers for goods. Right now though, they are the "Google" - the default - of online retailing and the starting point for most people.
I bought 3 Echo Dots for me and the kids at Christmas as I heard they had started supporting Apple Music. Support in the UK didn't happen until Easter so I moved to Amazon Music so the kids could listen to music. One of them would just not connect. The OSX Amazon Music app was quite good but has no graphic equaliser and inferior sound to Apple Music.
Once Apple Music support was added to the Alexa's I switched back and everything worked perfectly. The Echo Dots are fantastic for £25 each. The sound is ideal for kitchen/bedroom use. Why Apple only offers a solution at over ten times the price is beyond me. Everyone I know is either on Alexa or Google. Apple looks ridiculous yet again only offering a high-end solution.
Good enough is actually 'good enough' for most people. I have high-end hi-fi for my lounge and office and can get by with 'okay' in the kitchen. Apple needs to get its head out of the clouds and start offering solutions that normal people can afford. Hopefully, they'll then move up the Apple food chain. After all, BMW's don't start at the 5 Series. They start at the bottom end and offer something good enough to make people want to trade up as they grow.
Comments
Go to AmazonInsider.com
Prime seems to be Amazons "iPhone". They keep making it more and more attractive. I think they acquired Whole Foods for this reason alone. Prime members get exclusive discounts at this expensive store.
I think it’s YOU who don’t have a clue.
But for the moment, their relatively low pricing and fast shipping, mixed in with their brilliant customer service has me hooked!
From my understanding of the article, they are counting the free tier you get with Amazon Prime as soon as you try it out for the 1st time. I too have it (because of being a Prime member) and have used it once or twice - I like how they will automatically give you the mp3s for whatever CD you buy from them.....
THAT BEING SAID... I use Apple Music, and not because I am an Apple fan (which of course I am) but because I listen to mostly live music, either music I record live, music off of archive.org, or music I purchase from livedownloads.com, nugs.net (same thing) etc. Apple Music has unparalleled upload and match and host in cloud that NO ONE else offers (Google kind of did at one point with a limit of 50,000 tracks but that went away when they switched too youtube music), and with a limit of 100,000 songs it works great. While I do have music OUTSIDE of iTunes (in FLAC files, etc) I use subsonic to stream that outside the home. Spotify's limit is 10,000 songs in your library.
And Sorry @Rain22, I understand you LOVE Spotify, and my friends LOVE the playlist and intelligence of Spotify (personally I came to Apple Music the MOG > Beats > Apple Music route so I disagree about the algorithms - MOG was the best and that is why I followed that path), but what @Notsofast said is true - Spotify can't make money and compete on the same level with companies like Google, Amazon, and Apple who are doing exactly what @notsofast said, and yes Spotify just made its first profit ever this last year, but expects to lose 200-360 Million Euros in 2019, has a shrinking growth rate, and will indeed need to be swallowed up by someone eventually. Do your research....
Again, I would not doubt I am one of the people counted for Amazon Music, and I NEVER listen to it anymore....
https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-spotify-tech-results/spotify-posts-first-ever-operating-profit-but-cautious-outlook-for-2019-idUKKCN1PV15L
Also remember Apple went from 50 million subscribers to 60 million in just the last 3 months and is seriously outpacing Spotify on growth rate, and has no free tier.
FWIW you must at least be a Prime subscriber to even enjoy the included truncated Amazon Music tier so not exactly considered free when the least expensive way to get it will cost you $120/yr. I wouldn't go so far as to claim anyone here is trolling simply for expressing their preference for a "not-Apple" music provider Everyone else doesn't have to lose for Apple to be successful. Apple is doing pretty well for themselves.
Correct. Apple has a 3 month free to try. It is not counted towards their subscribers though, see here:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-music-overtakes-spotify-in-u-s-subscribers-11554475924
The 6 months free for students kicked in yesterday lol, so I doubt that works into any figures anyway.
It is $5 a month, not $6. Both Spotify and Amazon have student tiers that are less expensive. Spotify's is the exact same $5, as is Amazon's, so not quite sure what stating anything about student pricing subscriptions has anything to do with anything.
Yes, I am SURE if you get free from Verizon you are counted. I am sure that explains part of their growth in the last 6 months (Apple's - it might explain the quick jump from 50 to 60 million, since they coincide with the timeframe). I would imagine that translates to the student pricing for Verizon (if we are trying to get revenues for Apple, Apple is probably paid the student pricing rate by Verizon).
Don't disagree that Amazon Prime is not "free". The point I was making is that just because you are an Amazon Prime member (which I am) and you pay Amazon $120 a year (for shipping, movies, and yes, a "free" tier of music) does not mean I ever use it. But it is counted by Amazon as part of the growth, the whole point of this article...
I was referring specifically to @rain22 insofar as as trolling due to their insane rant extolling the wonderful virtues of Spotify and how it is so strong and the king yada yada. Not saying Spotify is going out of business tomorrow, but it is certainly not on solid ground, and the statement about it not being sustainable standalone is probably true in the long term. Spotify has shown ONE quarter ever of turning a profit, and it's growth has slowed and it expects to lose in the hundred's of millions of Euros this coming year...
Apple has in fact stated that number is for paid subscribers. Nice assumption though. It seems everyone wants to act as if Apple is somehow padding their numbers - more than likely because they can't stomach the idea of Apple being successful at anything. Someone else was trying to argue that number also counted all family members using a family membership, when Apple clearly states 60 million paid subscriptions and not paid users.
The fact is, Amazon is counting their free tier because even that tier sits behind a subscription wall. So anyone who has a Prime membership and an Alexa device, and asks Alexa to "play music", they are counted as part of that free tier. I'm not dissing Amazon, it's great they have that free service to make Alexa devices more useful.
No.
Where did Apple state that? Not saying they haven't but the only thing I've seen reported is "according to people familiar with the matter", same as what this article uses as a source instead of statements from the players themselves. In fact if you actually read the AI article completely you would have seen this disclaimer:
"It isn't clear if the Financial Times subscriber numbers include trial subscriptions to the premium services."
As for Amazon if their music was "free" as you keep repeating it is then you wouldn't have to pay at least $120 a year to access even the abridged version of it.
EDIT: I'm curious what "people" would have the factual PAID subscriber numbers for Apple and Amazon and others. Apparently they are not official numbers meant for disclosure so is there some insider who moves between all those companies and privy to the accounting? Perhaps a licensing agency executive tasked with verifying the money owed to artists and content owners by each of the streaming services is the best I could come up with unless they're simply educated guesses by an analyst.
I avoid them as well... Everyone offers free shipping these days so the Prime 2-day isn't a big deal anymore. Besides half the stuff you attempt to buy on Amazon, comes from some other source, and those products are not guaranteed by Amazon, which is how and why counterfeiting is so rampant on their site. (Although I believe Amazon just lost a lawsuit, so they may in fact have to start cracking down on those Marketplace shops.)
I suspect Amazon is over-reaching and will be in for a rude awakening at some point as people become more comfortable shopping online and drifting towards other retailers for goods. Right now though, they are the "Google" - the default - of online retailing and the starting point for most people.
Once Apple Music support was added to the Alexa's I switched back and everything worked perfectly. The Echo Dots are fantastic for £25 each. The sound is ideal for kitchen/bedroom use. Why Apple only offers a solution at over ten times the price is beyond me. Everyone I know is either on Alexa or Google. Apple looks ridiculous yet again only offering a high-end solution.
Good enough is actually 'good enough' for most people. I have high-end hi-fi for my lounge and office and can get by with 'okay' in the kitchen. Apple needs to get its head out of the clouds and start offering solutions that normal people can afford. Hopefully, they'll then move up the Apple food chain. After all, BMW's don't start at the 5 Series. They start at the bottom end and offer something good enough to make people want to trade up as they grow.