steven n.

Soli said:

A $40k fine for improper handling of hazardous waste? How is that in any way a disincentive to a company as large and profitable as Apple? I wish fines were based on the gravity of the potential maximum risk to the environment over the longterm multiplied by by a factor of the company's wealth so that a company like Apple wouldn't even either being too lazy to care about the risk or trying to get away with it.

avon b7 said:

What product numbers? None have been given. As I said above, one artist's data is irrelevant and doesn't constitute product numbers but simply Drake numbers.

Also, as I said before, is it outlandish to think that those subscribers (on both platforms) who weren't streaming Drake, were just streaming something else? Surely what counts - from a platform perspective - is total streams, not if some of your subscribers happen to be listening to the same record at the same time. Beyond simply adding up streams there is nothing interesting here except for Drake (and breaking a streaming record) and no one has been able to offer anything as a way of an argument to support how this is relevant from a platform perspective.

What counts is subscribers, then active subscribers. Subscriber numbers are important but if they are paying but not using the service you have a problem because at some point they could cancel the subscription. Active subscribers are better as they probably have a reason to keep subscribing and actively using the service.

Apple wants more subscribers. Spotify wants more subscribers. Why wouldn't they?

What those subscribers listen too at any given time is moot unless some streams report more profit than others (but do they and what are the details). We don't know. What we know is that individual artist stream tallies are not representative of very much at all.

And we know that Drake won't be releasing something every week which makes the whole thing even more pointless.

avon b7 said:

steven n. said:

Yes, I understand the 'record streaming' part. That's fine. What I don't understand is why it is even relevant, nor why Spotify is brought into it with comments on subscriber proportions.

I don't see how one album in one snapshot is even remotely of interest to anyone but Drake.

avon b7 said:

matrix077 said:

ireland said:

matrix077 said:

avon b7 said:

Rayz2016 said:

avon b7 said:

corrections said:

ireland said:

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.