Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Well, That Was Quick - Bored Already, Not Going To Keep Apple Music
- Thread starter boltjames
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
CDs are much cheaper than iTunes. I recently got a set of 10 Bach cantata discs for £55. On iTunes, it would have cost me £80. And a few months ago, they were £160 on iTunes.
iTunes albums need to be 40-50% cheaper, in my opinion. Ie. £4-£5 rather than £8, which most are in the UK.
I also dispute your assertion that streaming is a small cost. If you are an average person, subscribing to Apple Music would mean spending 900% more on music than you currently do. £12,000 over a lifetime. I wouldn't say it's convenient either, if you like to organise your favourite music and keep track of metadata.
It's also highly risky. Who knows what will happen to the cost of streaming in the future? Fees could escalate. If you buy, you know you can listen forever and don't need to spend a penny more. Rent, and you'll end up resenting it. If you decide to cancel, BAM, there go your playlists, data and music.
Last edited:
just priced 10 Bach discs in dollars through itunes, comes to 63.8 pounds. I guess cost is less in US
You seem to miss that people only spend $12 a year on iTunes because there simply isn't enough quality music worth paying for.
So throwing around "30 million songs!" doesn't make the problem better, it makes it worse. Hearing the same song a few times is what makes it 'stick', makes you want to buy it. Going from The Hot 100 to The Impossible 30,000,000 makes the odds of hearing the same song twice far smaller, makes the odds of wanting to pay for a service like that even more remote.
I listen to hundreds of songs a year on the radio. I purchase a dozen or so a year because that's the number that actually meant enough to me to keep them and want to hear them in the future. I won't pay 10x more money to listen to more songs I don't like.
BJ
Don't confuse the two arguments:
There is me who might buy 75 songs a year if compelled to do so or spend $0 a year if it's slim pickin's. And then there is the typical average iTunes user who downloads 12 songs and spends $12 a year. That's who we're talking about right now.
For the typical average iTunes user, they don't spend money on music so they're not going to spend on it now. Downloads (2002), Bonus Videos (2005), iTunes Extras (2009), iTunes Radio (2012), Apple Music (2015) it's the same story. They try and try to compel people to do something they won't do. I don't like peanut butter. You can offer me a two-fer, you can offer me a bundle, you can offer me an unlimited auto-delivery program, I just don't like peanut butter so there's no point.
To most people, music is 'radio' and it's free. And if there is a song that you must hear immediately and over and over again you buy it, or if there's a favorite artist whose work you must have to listen to as part of the collection you buy it. And that's it. Most music is catchy and played regularly. I can hear a new Katy Perry tune or Maroon 5 tune and really like it but I know it's very popular and I know that I'm going to hear it twice a day for the entire summer and once it's September I'm going to be bored of it. So I don't need to buy it. Same for Streaming.
BJ
You don't know me or what my collection is comprised of. I have a bigger iTunes Library than anyone I know and I know a lot of people. People come to me for new bands I've discovered, people compliment me when I host a party and the music is kickin', I have 100's of Playlists that I've curated myself and it's what I listen to the most. It's scary when you realize how unimportant music is to the average person. It's background noise. It's what they listen to in the car to avoid boredom or if sports radio is having a weak day. There is no huge audience for something like Apple Music. It's a small subset of us that are relatively hardcore and the problem with that is that we already own what we want from the past and we know how to discover new tunes in the present. It's what we're good at.
Since you're struggling with this, here, let me make it really simple for you:
To the average person, Streaming is Radio and Radio is free so there's no need for them to pay for Streaming.
-and-
For the music enthusiast, Streaming is a poor substitute for downloading, the catalog is incomplete, it forces you to let Apple take over your Library, and it sucks you into a lifetime of paying a monthly fee.
BJ
I will never like Reggae except on a beach in the summer. I will never like Jazz except at a dinner party. I abhor World Music as much as I dislike people who drive a Toyota Prius. The greatest Latin song ever written might be unleashed on the planet tomorrow and I won't care one iota. It's not what I'm into.
No one "Genre surfs" once they turn 20. By that time they know who they are and what they like. So this mythical back catalog of "30 Million Songs!" means nothing since you'd never in a million years want to listen to 29 Million of them. Take out the artists you don't like within your Genres, take out the 7 out of 10 songs that are album filler, take out the tens-of-thousands of songs you already own, and you're left with a very narrow subset.
And in that context, Apple Music vs. iTunes Radio for the Genres you like is a landslide win for iTunes Radio. Set up a dozen custom stations, listen to the stock stations, you're getting as much exposure to the new stuff as you would on Apple Music. And it's free. There just isn't enough great new music released each year in the Genres you like to accidentally miss something great. Apple Music just opens you up to the mediocre. And makes you pay for it. No thanks.
BJ
To this point about someone with a 'mature' iTunes Library: Because you have a big collection and already know what you like, Apple Music is a repeat purchase for what you already own and a waste of money. Use free iTunes Radio or Pandora to get exposure to the new stuff and purchase downloads for what you like- no different than you've been doing forever.
To this point about a newb just getting started: It's a cheap way to get exposure and build a nice Library but it is fraught with issues. To a 10 year old or a 15 year old, the data charges will eat you alive. The commitment to 50 years of $10 monthly payments is harsh. The more you build into your Library the more can be taken away if Apple gets bitten by a competitive service, if artists leave, if artists sign exclusives with someone else. Perish the thought of a newb's library without Prince, The Beatles, Bob Seger, Garth Brooks, Thom Yorke, and thousands of albums from many artists early years, their B-sides, etc. It's too volatile. It's not like iTunes which is comprehensive; it's quite the opposite.
BJ
Most people feel just as you do. And that's why the average spend on iTunes is $12 a year.
Apple Music offers the tempting thought of owning every song ever made and it's just not true. And even if it were, it would be like the early days of Napster where people went without sleep and called in sick for a whole week so they could download every song they ever wanted. And then they ran out of artists they liked. And then they just became consumers of the new stuff. And the music industry has never been so bad. And so they aren't going to make a big financial commitment for mostly lousy products.
BJ
That's an interesting attitude. And of course, if that is the case, then streaming is really not for you.
For me, it's the opposite. I need new music every now and then. I have mentioned before that as a teenager, my means of discovering music was meeting with other guys my age, and they brought in music that they liked. Heck, I remember how my best friend played music to me over the phone every now and then. When I was in my twenties, that discovery mechanism faded away. I remember how I had somewhat of a "depressive period" in my mid-twenties where I felt that all the good music had already been written and that I had already heard everything worth hearing. People told me than that this is a weird thing to say, but I realize now that it was because I had stopped discovering new stuff. Streaming finally fixed that problem for me. So for me, that tiny monthly sum is a great investment.
That is completely untrue.
When I as 20, my musical taste was near-completely limited to "West Coast Rock" and Soul. Then I discovered Ska when I was in my early thirties. It's now one of my favorite genres, and that includes stuff like Japanese girl band ska, which is about as far away from "West Coast Rock" as it can get.
Really, really, really, please speak for yourself.
No, it opens me up to the stuff that I usually wouldn't buy. Why is that automatically mediocre? I am currently listening to stuff that I never felt like buying, but it's certainly not mediocre. In fact, it's probably someone else's favorite music.
I can now listen to hundreds of album cuts from great jazz musicians. Before, I would have had to buy a hundred albums from these musicians to do the same thing, hoping to find some gems on these albums. I didn't care enough for jazz to do that. But I am sure that there are people here who'd tell me that I was missing out on some of the greatest music ever made. Well, perhaps they are right, but there's simply a limit to what I am willing to spend on music. That doesn't mean that the stuff that I am not going to buy is not good.
I think very few people still pay data charges when listening to music at home. And for listening to music outside your home, there is the offline listening option.
People are committed to much higher payments on a lot of stuff. I pay nearly $1000 a month for my apartment. Own a car? Well, say hello to rather high monthly payments for the rest of your life. Want cable TV service? That's more than $10 a month for most people. Want to use a mobile phone for more than pure reachability? Monthly payments! And so on. No idea why music should take a lower priority there.
Sure, I could buy an apartment/house, but I can't afford an apartment in the area I live in, just like I can't afford to buy all the music that I would ever like to listen to. And I certainly can't afford to buy an apartment/house in every area that I might want to move to at some point in my life, just like I can't afford to buy the huge amounts of music that I actually enjoy.
I can't believe you are still trying to claim this, when it is completely wrong.
Streaming services absolutely do not offer the thought of owning anything.
They offer access to listen to (pretty much) anything, which is not the same thing.
Presumably you would not argue that public libraries offer the tempting thought of owning every book ever written?
Its not that people are struggling with anything - they just disagree with you.
If the average person thinks streaming is radio, then they clearly don't get it.
With streaming I can access pretty much any track or album and listen to it at will. I can drop it in with my music library and access it from there, so that while I am subscribing, to all practical intent it is part of my music collection.
When I listen to the radio I can only listen to what is what is currently being played.
So streaming is nothing like radio.
Last edited:
OK, so now we know about you.
Sorry, but this is utter nonsense. You are trying to argue that no-one, period, discovers new music, or even entire new genres of music they like after they turn 20? Absolute BS!
You are still completely missing the point with all of this. The big draw is not that you ever would listen to 29 million songs. The point is that you are able to listen to as much music as you might be interested in listening to.
For example, if the only way someone could hear an album was if they bought the album, then obviously they have to be a bit choosy about the albums they buy, because if they bought every single album they thought they might want to listen to, it could get quite expensive quite quickly.
But with streaming you can listen to all the albums you would like to, for the same cost as buying just one single CD.
Using your login, I have no doubt it would be a very small proportion of the entire Apple Music catalogue
I just don't understand why you are struggling with this.
With iTunes Radio, if I hear a track I like, can I then add the album that the track is from to my library, and listen to it whenever I like?
It opens you up to pretty much anything, which obviously is going to include a lot of stuff that a lot of people like, even if it included nothing that you would like.
If you want to pay $60 a year for 6-10 albums, that's entirely fine.
But seriously - enough already with the idea that for no-one the prospect of paying $120 a year to hear 30-50 albums a year (or even more), plus goodness knows how many odd tracks, is a perfectly good deal.
Last edited:
I'm 49 and I still "Genre surf" and always have done. I have a very diverse taste in music and a willingness to be open minded and love discovering new stuff to listen to as well as enjoying music I've listened to for the last 30+ years
Well I'm not under 20 but thanks. And no, iTunes Radio is worth less than nothing to me. I see albums as complete projects like movies. Having a bunch of songs on shuffle is like shuffling YouTube clips of the "best" parts of different movies, in my opinion. And you keep referencing new music like that's the kicker, but less than 5% of my music listening is from music released in the last year.
Yes, we've established that.
But its not really just about you.
You're right - hearing the same song a few times is what makes it stick.
Now, I don't know about anyone else, or if I have gotten the hang of this streaming thing, but what I might typically do is this:
Hear a song on Apple Music, either on Beats 1 or a playlist, or maybe even a station started from another track.
If I like it, I might add it to My Music. heck, I might add the whole album its from.
Once its in My Music, I'll listen to it some more by simply finding it and hitting play. (As opposed to listening to the radio on the off chance the radio station will play it again)
So you have your hundreds of songs that you hear, and your dozen that you buy.
I'll have hundreds I hear, a dozen that I buy. And I'll have dozens of albums I wouldn't have bought, but still wanted to listen to.
But that might just be me.
How do you considered the possibility that some people are spending little or no money buying music, because they are paying for a Spotify subscription?
Yes, just yes. This service exists today. The promise of "access to 30 Million Songs!" has been around since Marconi, I've got about 20 of 'em in my office and home and car, it's called "Radio". Streaming is Radio. It's FM on steroids. It's music you're free to listen to but you can't own. It doesn't get people very excited.
And that's awesome. You and the other 1% of the population that are fully open to hundreds of different Genre's of music after 34 years of life on Earth are to be commended for your openness and are probably the only consumers that can make good use out of Apple Music and it's $120 cost.
BJ
Can you name 1 band that made its last record and went undiscovered in 1985 that turns out to be truly fantastic today? In the history of recorded music, almost 100 years, has there been a band so terrific that the world simply overlooked and decades later then discovered? Nope. You're looking for the Loch Ness Monster. You should stop.
There are so few good bands that the good ones always bubble up. They always do. Not to mention, it's the record-companies job to make sure that they promote them properly and get them broken. It's not our job to pay 10x what we normally do for music to dig them up like precious gold in a dark mine.
BJ
When I listen to the radio, can I select any song or album I want to listen to?
When I listen to, can I download the song or album its from to my computer / portable device to listen to again whenever I choose?
You're right - it probably is just 1% who are open to hundreds of different genres of music after the age of 34.
Which is more than the 0% of over 20s it was earlier.
But why would you use such extreme terms?
$120 is only the equivalent of about 10-12 albums a year.
I am sure there must be more than 1% of the population interested in music enough to want to hear more than 10-12 albums a year, even if they don't want to buy many more than 10-12 albums a year.
Someone listening to 15 albums a year is hardly the extreme 1% you like to think it is.
You put a higher value on albums than the vast majority of artists who created them. Unless you're listening to concept albums or classical music, 99% of the albums are just a bunch of songs thrown into a certain order that ranges from "We spent a few minutes thinking about it and then the label overruled us anyway" to "Completely random". Artists either have 15 demos, and the producer and/or the label pick the ones they consider the best ten, or they have 5 songs and then try hard to come up with a bunch of fillers to be able to release a complete album, so there is no over-arching concept there. Even for my favorite musicians, I have to acknowledge that some songs on their albums are really filler material, and I think very few musicians really think of their albums as "complete coherent works of art".
Yes, there was a time in the 60s when albums became more important and bands moved away from albums containing singles + fillers. But still, unless it was a concept album, the musicians rarely sat down and thought first "Ok, how do we structure this album? What songs do we write for the beginning, the middle and the end?" And even if they did, it didn't seem to bother them when people "shuffled" their songs. Or did Styx object to "Mr. Roboto" being released from "Kilroy Was Here"? Heck, even with classical music, I don't feel like I must listen to the whole piece every time. I listen to the second movement of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, without feeling that I first have to sit through the heard-it-much-too-often first movement.
I think you really interpret some value into albums that wasn't intended to be there in the first place. Would be nice if artists and producers viewed albums in such a way. But really, they don't.
Undiscovered, period? Probably not.
Undiscovered by some people who have maybe only heard a few well known tracks by a band? Probably lots.
- Status