ebernet

gatorguy said:

 

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...

Wow.... Some crazy trolling here....

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.

flydog said:

wonkothesane said:

So yet another browser. Shrug. Still happy on Safari since day one. Never really needed FF Or anything else. Fast enough, consistent, no worries. I have one Safari running on an old machine (used as media server) where Flash is installed. That’s it. A smarter way for collecting snippets from the web might be interesting, though. I’m catching myself with lots of tabs open because I like to save for future “maybe reference”. 

Not another browser.  Edge has been around for years, and it replaced Internet Explorer.

Maybe on Windows, but not on Mac. There has been no Edge browser nor any browser from Microsoft (for the Mac) since IE left 15 years ago....

I understand but am still hard pressed to see why I would want a wireless car play solution. I have a CarPlay solution in my car (aftermarket) and find that I cannot use navigation without power (as Apple has indicated). Having used Wireless charging at home and in other cars, I find it unreliable and unable to keep up with real power demands. To use Wireless CarPlay I would need to have my phone plugged in to charge unless I am driving for just a few moments and am willing to put up with gradual power loss (maybe slower, but still power loss - Wireless Charging simply cannot keep power draw neutral when using navigation). Given that limitation, and the higher speed and quality I can achieve with a wire that both charges AND connects to my Head Unit, why would I spend a few hundred more and put up with the lag? ESPECIALLY after market where I would most likely ALSO have to install the Wireless Charger?

Soli said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

Soli said:

fallenjt said:

I was about to get ATV 4K and this really holds me back. I’m ok to live with the inconvenience of using build-in Netflix and Anazon Video apps in my smart TV to stream the 4K contents or just use my Xbox One S to do that. Save my $160 there.

This seems like a very temporary issue. This app was only release a few hours ago.

I guess that depends on if it is actually a "temporary issue" or a design decision.

They haven't done it to any other device, and I'd argue that they more directly compete with Roku for this space. Plus, I think that the majority of people with 4K+HDR TVs are only using the TV's speakers which means this won't affect them, while keeping 4K content out of he Prime Video app for the Apple TV would be a clear indicator that they want to steer you to a different device.

I would disagree that the majority of 4K TV users are using the built in speakers, since they opted for 4K. Additionally, I would assume even more the case that Apple TV 4 users are more likely to be using a surround sound capable system then other Prime customers. While I agree this is not a reason to not get the Apple TV, I DO think it is disgraceful of Amazon. I hope it was an overbite (how I don't know) and will be resolved soon, as in before the holidays....