“Internet people critical of Apple strategy! Film at 11.”
I think people are more or less baffled by this, not critical of it. Does it really cost Apple more to provide the use of buttons and controls that the Music app has? No. So why is there a price difference? Why is there effectively a premium for using the Music app?
It's beyond bizarre.
By that logic - does it really cost Apple/Disney/studios more to give me a digital copy of what they’re already providing to other people? I mean it’s the same distributed content file, what could it cost? Or why charge me more for a movie when it first drops, vs letting me rent it for $5?
It is a bit odd. What's the highest cost of running a music service - developing the UI? Letting people store their own playlists? Probably not. It ought to be the cost of the music. It sends an odd message to the musicindustry that their content is worth half the amount when you take Apple's graphics away.
What does it say to music industry when other competitors offer a $0 tier? That their labor isn’t worth anything? I think they’re happy as long as they continue to get paid.
“Internet people critical of Apple strategy! Film at 11.”
I think people are more or less baffled by this, not critical of it. Does it really cost Apple more to provide the use of buttons and controls that the Music app has? No. So why is there a price difference? Why is there effectively a premium for using the Music app?
It's beyond bizarre.
By that logic - does it really cost Apple/Disney/studios more to give me a digital copy of what they’re already providing to other people? I mean it’s the same distributed content file, what could it cost? Or why charge me more for a movie when it first drops, vs letting me rent it for $5?
Oh yeah, value is relative.
This is an Apples (pun intended) and oranges comparison. I'm talking about the cost differences between using the Music app versus using Siri exclusively to control music. You're talking about a physical item that can be purchased separately and since it's a separate item would obviously cost more.
Why would you expect to get commercial music product for free? Do bands work for free? Data centers powered on free? Hmm no, I don’t think so… Maybe you wanted ads or something?
i was thinking more along the lines that apple can afford to offer a free tier and still pay the artists and costs from their colossal profits
Why would you expect to get commercial music product for free? Do bands work for free? Data centers powered on free? Hmm no, I don’t think so… Maybe you wanted ads or something?
i was thinking more along the lines that apple can afford to offer a free tier and still pay the artists and costs from their colossal profits
“Internet people critical of Apple strategy! Film at 11.”
I think people are more or less baffled by this, not critical of it. Does it really cost Apple more to provide the use of buttons and controls that the Music app has? No. So why is there a price difference? Why is there effectively a premium for using the Music app?
It's beyond bizarre.
By that logic - does it really cost Apple/Disney/studios more to give me a digital copy of what they’re already providing to other people? I mean it’s the same distributed content file, what could it cost? Or why charge me more for a movie when it first drops, vs letting me rent it for $5?
Oh yeah, value is relative.
This is an Apples (pun intended) and oranges comparison. I'm talking about the cost differences between using the Music app versus using Siri exclusively to control music. You're talking about a physical item that can be purchased separately and since it's a separate item would obviously cost more.
I'm not talking about a physical good at all. I'm talking about digital goods -- whether it's a movie download, rental, or monthly subscription. "Does it really cost Disney more" to to rent me a brand new movie for $5 instead of $20 (as is the initial-release norm now). Same movie. Same digital file streamed to my house. Why should it cost more?
Of course they could give it to me for the same price, and because it's digital they wouldn't incur any more *cost*. But they don't do that...because value is relative. Even with digital goods. Same with tiers of music, or whatever. What's it worth to ya?
It is a bit odd. What's the highest cost of running a music service - developing the UI? Letting people store their own playlists? Probably not. It ought to be the cost of the music. It sends an odd message to the musicindustry that their content is worth half the amount when you take Apple's graphics away.
What does it say to music industry when other competitors offer a $0 tier? That their labor isn’t worth anything? I think they’re happy as long as they continue to get paid.
But e.g. the "free" Spotify tier is supported by ads. Apple has been pretty vocal about paying the artists more, so this _is_ an unexpected move.
It is a bit odd. What's the highest cost of running a music service - developing the UI? Letting people store their own playlists? Probably not. It ought to be the cost of the music. It sends an odd message to the musicindustry that their content is worth half the amount when you take Apple's graphics away.
What does it say to music industry when other competitors offer a $0 tier? That their labor isn’t worth anything? I think they’re happy as long as they continue to get paid.
But e.g. the "free" Spotify tier is supported by ads. Apple has been pretty vocal about paying the artists more, so this _is_ an unexpected move.
Right, the initial Spotify tier is paid for via advertising. And the initial Apple tier is paid for by the user. So no, it doesn't send an "odd message" to the music industry at all, which was my point -- they're getting paid. And if anything, a tier that requires the user to *pay* re-enforces the idea that music-as-a-product has value and should be paid for...again making moot the point Bern was trying to suggest (that Apple's tier somehow devalues the music industry's work).
I think they're just trying to get more people used to Siri. This serves two purposes: they get more data to try to make it better; non / low users like me will be more comfortable using it. I recently got a HomePod for the kitchen - I push music from my personal collection to it (not an Apple Music subscriber) and have recently been trying out certain things to see what it can do. Simple so far - set a timer for cooking, raise / lower the volume (it's on top of the fridge - can't reach I Identify a song playing on a radio station I stream (SomaFM). It hasn't been too horrible - it's training me as much as I try to train it lol.
Why would you expect to get commercial music product for free? Do bands work for free? Data centers powered on free? Hmm no, I don’t think so… Maybe you wanted ads or something?
i was thinking more along the lines that apple can afford to offer a free tier and still pay the artists and costs from their colossal profits
Yeah that ain’t working that’s the way to do it money for nothing and the chicks for free.
It is a bit odd. What's the highest cost of running a music service - developing the UI? Letting people store their own playlists? Probably not. It ought to be the cost of the music. It sends an odd message to the musicindustry that their content is worth half the amount when you take Apple's graphics away.
What does it say to music industry when other competitors offer a $0 tier? That their labor isn’t worth anything? I think they’re happy as long as they continue to get paid.
But e.g. the "free" Spotify tier is supported by ads. Apple has been pretty vocal about paying the artists more, so this _is_ an unexpected move.
Right, the initial Spotify tier is paid for via advertising. And the initial Apple tier is paid for by the user. So no, it doesn't send an "odd message" to the music industry at all, which was my point -- they're getting paid. And if anything, a tier that requires the user to *pay* re-enforces the idea that music-as-a-product has value and should be paid for...again making moot the point Bern was trying to suggest (that Apple's tier somehow devalues the music industry's work).
In the Spotify case you "pay" more the more you listen (as you'll get more ads), but i the Apple case the $5 is not enough to cover the costs of paying artists at the "high" level Apple do (at least that is what have been claimed before). So, it seems they assume the conversation rate will be very high, or that listening (number if streams) on this tier will be very low. In both cases because of the Siri experience, i guess.
It is a bit odd. What's the highest cost of running a music service - developing the UI? Letting people store their own playlists? Probably not. It ought to be the cost of the music. It sends an odd message to the musicindustry that their content is worth half the amount when you take Apple's graphics away.
What does it say to music industry when other competitors offer a $0 tier? That their labor isn’t worth anything? I think they’re happy as long as they continue to get paid.
But e.g. the "free" Spotify tier is supported by ads. Apple has been pretty vocal about paying the artists more, so this _is_ an unexpected move.
Right, the initial Spotify tier is paid for via advertising. And the initial Apple tier is paid for by the user. So no, it doesn't send an "odd message" to the music industry at all, which was my point -- they're getting paid. And if anything, a tier that requires the user to *pay* re-enforces the idea that music-as-a-product has value and should be paid for...again making moot the point Bern was trying to suggest (that Apple's tier somehow devalues the music industry's work).
In the Spotify case you "pay" more the more you listen (as you'll get more ads), but i the Apple case the $5 is not enough to cover the costs of paying artists at the "high" level Apple do (at least that is what have been claimed before).
How do you know that $5/month isn’t enough for Apple to pay artists at the same level they already do?
It is a bit odd. What's the highest cost of running a music service - developing the UI? Letting people store their own playlists? Probably not. It ought to be the cost of the music. It sends an odd message to the musicindustry that their content is worth half the amount when you take Apple's graphics away.
What does it say to music industry when other competitors offer a $0 tier? That their labor isn’t worth anything? I think they’re happy as long as they continue to get paid.
But e.g. the "free" Spotify tier is supported by ads. Apple has been pretty vocal about paying the artists more, so this _is_ an unexpected move.
Right, the initial Spotify tier is paid for via advertising. And the initial Apple tier is paid for by the user. So no, it doesn't send an "odd message" to the music industry at all, which was my point -- they're getting paid. And if anything, a tier that requires the user to *pay* re-enforces the idea that music-as-a-product has value and should be paid for...again making moot the point Bern was trying to suggest (that Apple's tier somehow devalues the music industry's work).
In the Spotify case you "pay" more the more you listen (as you'll get more ads), but i the Apple case the $5 is not enough to cover the costs of paying artists at the "high" level Apple do (at least that is what have been claimed before).
How do you know that $5/month isn’t enough for Apple to pay artists at the same level they already do?
At the same rate of listening? So you're suggesting that the $9.99/month for Apple Music at the regular subscription level is more than 50% profit?
It is a bit odd. What's the highest cost of running a music service - developing the UI? Letting people store their own playlists? Probably not. It ought to be the cost of the music. It sends an odd message to the musicindustry that their content is worth half the amount when you take Apple's graphics away.
What does it say to music industry when other competitors offer a $0 tier? That their labor isn’t worth anything? I think they’re happy as long as they continue to get paid.
But e.g. the "free" Spotify tier is supported by ads. Apple has been pretty vocal about paying the artists more, so this _is_ an unexpected move.
Right, the initial Spotify tier is paid for via advertising. And the initial Apple tier is paid for by the user. So no, it doesn't send an "odd message" to the music industry at all, which was my point -- they're getting paid. And if anything, a tier that requires the user to *pay* re-enforces the idea that music-as-a-product has value and should be paid for...again making moot the point Bern was trying to suggest (that Apple's tier somehow devalues the music industry's work).
In the Spotify case you "pay" more the more you listen (as you'll get more ads), but i the Apple case the $5 is not enough to cover the costs of paying artists at the "high" level Apple do (at least that is what have been claimed before).
How do you know that $5/month isn’t enough for Apple to pay artists at the same level they already do?
At the same rate of listening? So you're suggesting that the $9.99/month for Apple Music at the regular subscription level is more than 50% profit?
That seems unlikely.
I didn’t suggest anything, I asked a question. It isn’t even an unreasonable question considering Apple Music is $4.99 for students already.
This plan struck me as weird when it was announced during the keynote, but it makes sense for the way many people use Apple Music: by just asking Siri to play whatever, where “whatever” is a particular song, a particular artist, or a particular mood. If this is your plan, when you go to the Music app on your devices, the interface will just be Siri suggestions and your listening history. [Emphasis mine]
Similar to Amazon Music's Echo plan (which is $4/month, but limited to just one device).
Comments
Oh yeah, value is relative.
Of course they could give it to me for the same price, and because it's digital they wouldn't incur any more *cost*. But they don't do that...because value is relative. Even with digital goods. Same with tiers of music, or whatever. What's it worth to ya?
that’s the way to do it
money for nothing and the chicks for free.
So, it seems they assume the conversation rate will be very high, or that listening (number if streams) on this tier will be very low. In both cases because of the Siri experience, i guess.
That seems unlikely.
Similar to Amazon Music's Echo plan (which is $4/month, but limited to just one device).