Well, That Was Quick - Bored Already, Not Going To Keep Apple Music

[johngordon]

That's not how it works from a business sense. Apple and the record companies simply want to generate more money from the investment and infrastructure they already have in place. They just want to turn that $12 a year into $120 a year. They want you to think that you're getting $120 worth of value when they're offering you less. Think about it:

If you spent $120 a year right now in iTunes you'd get 120 song files to own permanently along with free iTunes Radio with custom stations for discovery.

If you spend $120 a year right now in Apple Music you get 0 song files to own permanently along with Radio and Deep Catalog for discovery.

In the end, Apple is getting $120 and you're getting nothing but a Deep Catalog which, for most people, is going to be a lot more limited than 120 song files a year would have been, and you'd get to own them indefinitely instead of paying $120 a year for the next 30 years. There isn't enough old stuff to sustain the expense for more than a few years and there isn't enough new music to sustain the expense in each coming year. The goal is to trick iTunes users to ditch the physical library for the streamed library and keep those $120 payments coming each year.

I'm sure they would love that, but whether people do or don't doesn't really matter.

Its like arguing that Ferrari are scam artists because they would like to turn everyone who buys a Ford into someone who buys a Ferrari.

Simple fact is that for some people, streaming will be a great value proposition. For others less so.

Just because it might not be for some does not make Apple scam artists, or make Apple Music objectively flawed.

It just means that, like a 101 other products or services, it will be down to the individual to decide if its for them or not.

You can't make that argument because free iTunes Radio exists and, sit down when you read this: That ironically allows me to listen to and discover MORE songs than you. The Beatles are available on iTunes Radio. The Beatles are not available on Apple Music Radio/Playlists. Same for Prince, Jay-Z, etc.

I absolutely can make the argument that very few people are going to subscribe to Apple Music or Spotify and only listen to 12 songs a year.

True, I won't deny that. Apple Music has some cool features. But they are all about convenience, not quality, and convenience wears off very quickly.

BJ

If it includes (virtually) everything, then of course it includes whatever quality stuff is in the catalogue.

New music isn't actually all awful - far from it, whether you agree or not. And even if you don't, it doesn't matter, because no-one's perception of whether new music is good or bad is based on what you think about it.

 

[flur]

Beats 1 is free, subscription or not

Can someone tell me - which category do Artist Radio Stations fall under? Since "Add Apple Music Content to your Library" and "Save for offline listening" don't work if you have iCML disabled, I'm not thinking the service is worth $9.99 to me, when all I do is stream Artist Radio Stations (for the discovery factor). So I'm wondering if I'll still be able to do that or if I'll need to give that up in 2.5 months.

 

[flur]

Hearts? Feministic society.

Dude. Seriously? You must have some serious homophobia if you think hearts and love are only for girls.

 

[boltjames]

I was watching a tv show today and over the ending credits was a song I had heard before but was not sure of the name or who sang it. I said "Siri, who sings this song". Siri identified it then let me play it right there and / or go into apple music and add it to my music.

I have identified probably a thousand songs w shazam over the years. I have not bought any of them. I would not have bought this one either. But no brainer to add it to my streaming library to have it to run into again in the future.

I think Topic Starter does not understand the benefit of the frictionless encounter any streaming service offers versus having to make a purchase decision every time you want to listen to a piece of music.

The Topic Starter understands the benefits of convenience but isn't willing to pay 10x more for it.

And any song not worth buying for a whopping $0.99 cents isn't worth clogging up your Library with.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

So when you say "yes" you actually mean "no". I can only listen to it when I buy it.

Again, "yes" really means "no" because I have to buy it.

You are "buying" Apple Music, chief. In fact, it costs 10x more than the average person would spend in a year to own the very songs you'd be renting.

Just give Apple $0.01 cent for 11 albums and agree to buy just 8 more at club prices for the next 3 years. It's the same scam as the Columbia Record Club. Once you have your fill of the best stuff available from the past you find that it's slim picken's into the future and they've got you on the hook because they're holding you hostage. In the end, all that really matters is your Library and your Playlists and Apple will take them away in 2025 if you don't keep paying them then for the early burst of enthusiasm you had when you joined in 2015.

BJ

 

[flur]

You are "buying" Apple Music, chief. In fact, it costs 10x more than the average person would spend in a year to own the very songs you'd be renting.

Just give Apple $0.01 cent for 11 albums and agree to buy just 8 more at club prices for the next 3 years. It's the same scam as the Columbia Record Club. Once you have your fill of the best stuff available from the past you find that it's slim picken's into the future and they've got you on the hook because they're holding you hostage. In the end, all that really matters is your Library and your Playlists and Apple will take them away in 2025 if you don't keep paying them then for the early burst of enthusiasm you had when you joined in 2015.

BJ

Well, I'm using Apple Music for discovery but buying stuff because I have iCML turned off. In the two weeks since the service launched, I've discovered and bought 4 albums and another 10 songs (effectively a 5th album worth of music), all of which were new to me (not stuff I liked from the past). I'm considering another 2 albums. So, so far I'm up to $50 spent, with another $20 likely (I'm holding off to see if Apple can fix the cluster that is iCML). Seems like streaming might be the way to go financially, if that's what I find in just two weeks, no?

 

[shandyman]

Artists? LOL.

Artists loved the days when recordings were sold in stores and the only thing a buyer had to go by was a single song they heard on the radio before they plunked down $12.99 and listened to the other 11 tracks at home. "Hey guys, the new Styx album is out and I just heard the single and it sounds good!" before going home, listening to Side 1 Cut 1 'Mr. Roboto' and going "WTF did I just buy"?

And what's sad is, Apple Music is just like that and you embrace it so easily. "Hey gang, I have a great idea! Let's pay Apple $120 a year so the record companies have no financial incentive to worry about quality! Pay for everything before hearing anything! Just like the old days of physical media and shrink wrap!" Genius.

BJ

Your posts are portraying Apple Music as being the first and only ones out there doing f streaming, when others, like Spotify have been around for 9 years, 6 years in the U.K.

 

[shandyman]

All you really want to say is that last sentence so please start a thread about a war between friendly continents in the forum it belongs in.

BJ

You're the one focusing solely on the US and ignoring the rest, I'm just calling you out on it. It's a global site.....

....I think at the moment Apple decided to participate in the streaming scam and go all anti-consumer for the first time in their history.

So, because you don't like streaming, as it's pointless for you, it's anti consumer?!

Streaming is not radio. It's more like Netflix, or , to go old school, a library....

 

[Supermallet]

You are "buying" Apple Music, chief. In fact, it costs 10x more than the average person would spend in a year to own the very songs you'd be renting.

Just give Apple $0.01 cent for 11 albums and agree to buy just 8 more at club prices for the next 3 years. It's the same scam as the Columbia Record Club. Once you have your fill of the best stuff available from the past you find that it's slim picken's into the future and they've got you on the hook because they're holding you hostage. In the end, all that really matters is your Library and your Playlists and Apple will take them away in 2025 if you don't keep paying them then for the early burst of enthusiasm you had when you joined in 2015.

BJ

While this is a slightly better analogy than comparing streaming to terrestrial radio, it's still way off. Record clubs worked like this: Pay a low buy-in cost to receive several albums (which were usually pressed specifically for the club with lower quality than a record store copy), then be forced to pay for X amount more albums at the prices set by the record club.

Furthermore, the record clubs would send you subsequent records of their choosing and charge you for them unless you specifically opted out and chose a different selection.

The only real equivalent between the two is the idea of subscriber lock in. The services provided and the relative value of the services are totally different. But it's cute that you're still trying.

 

[shandyman]

If you spend $120 a year right now in Apple Music you get 0 song files to own permanently along with Radio and Deep Catalog for discovery.

If you spent that on iTunes, you could still end up with nothing if the artists/labels pull their content from iTunes.

If you spent that on physical media, you could lose it all if your house burnt down and you got robbed, or something. Those rare albums, gone forever.

So what's your point? Also, on a morbid note, if you die, you can't take it with you anyway.

 

[shandyman]

You are "buying" Apple Music, chief. In fact, it costs 10x more than the average person would spend in a year to own the very songs you'd be renting.

Just give Apple $0.01 cent for 11 albums and agree to buy just 8 more at club prices for the next 3 years. It's the same scam as the Columbia Record Club. Once you have your fill of the best stuff available from the past you find that it's slim picken's into the future and they've got you on the hook because they're holding you hostage. In the end, all that really matters is your Library and your Playlists and Apple will take them away in 2025 if you don't keep paying them then for the early burst of enthusiasm you had when you joined in 2015.

BJ

You keep arguing that Apple Music isn't worth it because it costs 10x more than the average person pays, which is a ridiculous argument as you have no idea what we pay a year for music. We might pay £200 or more.

You're trying to claim streaming is a ripoff based on your personal narrow minded opinion, being misrepresented as fact.....

 

[Pagemakers]

This is a very fair (awful) review of Apple Music by the UK's Telegraph Newspaper

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolo...review-clunky-fussy-confusing-and-flawed.html

 

[Uofmtiger]

You're missing the point and confusing two different aspects of what's wrong with Apple Music.

"Streaming for Discovery" can be had right now, for free, via iTunes Radio.

"Steaming for Deep Catalog" is akin to the Columbia Record Club circa 1980 which made it look like you were getting a great value and then ripped you off badly.


BJ

1. Once again, it strange to compare radio to on demand streaming. Obviously, we can even discover music at Starbucks, but that doesn't mean it is the same as having a button available for accessing the full albums and artist catalogs when we want to dig deeper. It is the access to full albums that take the experience to a much deeper level.

2. No, Columbia House is nothing like on demand streaming. The music that was available was miniscule in comparison, you had to wait weeks to hear the album, you were required to buy more albums at higher rates than market value in addition to high shipping and handling costs. On demand streaming is as simple as hearing a song or getting a suggestion for Radiohead, clicking a button, and having most (if not all) of their album catalog immediately available. On Demand Streaming is a much better experience with a much bigger catalog and you can quit tomorrow if you don't like it.

Some of the analogies are just bizarre. However, it comes down to whether you will listen to enough albums to make it worth while. $10 a month is practically nothing these days. For me, it is easily worth it. For someone that listens to twelve albums a year, it definitely isn't worth it.

As with many Apple products, the music service isn't for everyone. They have never made that product that everyone needs and I doubt they every will.

 

[Dark Void]

Dude. Seriously? You must have some serious homophobia if you think hearts and love are only for girls.

That isn't really what I was suggesting but sorry for offending you. Not my intention, just an opinion.

 

[johngordon]

You are "buying" Apple Music, chief. In fact, it costs 10x more than the average person would spend in a year to own the very songs you'd be renting.

Just give Apple $0.01 cent for 11 albums and agree to buy just 8 more at club prices for the next 3 years. It's the same scam as the Columbia Record Club. Once you have your fill of the best stuff available from the past you find that it's slim picken's into the future and they've got you on the hook because they're holding you hostage. In the end, all that really matters is your Library and your Playlists and Apple will take them away in 2025 if you don't keep paying them then for the early burst of enthusiasm you had when you joined in 2015.

BJ

But it's completely different to radio.

If I listen to the radio I cannot at the tap of a button add tracks to my library.

If I have a streaming subscription I can.

Stop telling me what I will find! I know from experience that I'll find plenty of good new music pretty much all the time.

I don't care one iota about the average person might get out of it, I only care about what I'll get out of it.

And I'd be amazed if I don't get at least a dozen new albums, a smattering of old albums and countless odd tracks in a year.

 

[johngordon]

Well, I'm using Apple Music for discovery but buying stuff because I have iCML turned off. In the two weeks since the service launched, I've discovered and bought 4 albums and another 10 songs (effectively a 5th album worth of music), all of which were new to me (not stuff I liked from the past). I'm considering another 2 albums. So, so far I'm up to $50 spent, with another $20 likely (I'm holding off to see if Apple can fix the cluster that is iCML). Seems like streaming might be the way to go financially, if that's what I find in just two weeks, no?

You'd think wouldn't you?

Until you factor in the average spend on music, and realise Apple have scammed you. Sucker!

 

[flur]

You'd think wouldn't you?

Until you factor in the average spend on music, and realise Apple have scammed you. Sucker!

How? If I just streamed everything, I wouldn't be buying. At the rate I'm going, if I buy everything, I'd spend $100/month on music. That's a $1200/year versus streaming's $120/year. There is no math in which I save money by buying.

 

[boltjames]

I'm sure they would love that, but whether people do or don't doesn't really matter.

Its like arguing that Ferrari are scam artists because they would like to turn everyone who buys a Ford into someone who buys a Ferrari.

Simple fact is that for some people, streaming will be a great value proposition. For others less so.

Just because it might not be for some does not make Apple scam artists, or make Apple Music objectively flawed.

It just means that, like a 101 other products or services, it will be down to the individual to decide if its for them or not.

I absolutely can make the argument that very few people are going to subscribe to Apple Music or Spotify and only listen to 12 songs a year.

If it includes (virtually) everything, then of course it includes whatever quality stuff is in the catalogue.

New music isn't actually all awful - far from it, whether you agree or not. And even if you don't, it doesn't matter, because no-one's perception of whether new music is good or bad is based on what you think about it.

Good post, my thoughts:

In the short-term, Apple Music will be a tremendous value to consumers of a specific age who have not amassed a decently sized Library of downloaded music. Many of the posters in this thread fall into this group and I get why they like it so much.

But in their long-term, Apple Music will invert itself and become a needless monthly expense and something they will regret. Like the Columbia Record Club or even the halcyon days of Napster and Limewire, you go through that first week of joy taking 100s of songs offline from all the classic artists you wanted, all those old hits from junior high school, all the stuff your friends always raved about, it's high-times for Apple Music and you love it. "All this for $10? Wow! Thanks Apple!" But by the 2nd month you realize that all the cool offloads are over, you have everything you ever wanted, and now you're stuck in a business model that requires you to keep paying to rent something you otherwise could have bought. And as the years go by and you listen to Flock Of Seagulls less and less, you realize you're paying a lot of money and you're not really happy with the new releases and are bored of the old archive and you're back in the same no-man's land we are in right now.

We went through this already. The year after Napster, we all had this withdrawal. It's down to 2 or 3 albums a year and a few singles, you don't listen to The Doors more than once every 5 years. So you listen to the radio because it's fresh. And radio, terrestrial or iTunes, is free.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Well, I'm using Apple Music for discovery but buying stuff because I have iCML turned off. In the two weeks since the service launched, I've discovered and bought 4 albums and another 10 songs (effectively a 5th album worth of music), all of which were new to me (not stuff I liked from the past). I'm considering another 2 albums. So, so far I'm up to $50 spent, with another $20 likely (I'm holding off to see if Apple can fix the cluster that is iCML). Seems like streaming might be the way to go financially, if that's what I find in just two weeks, no?

See my post above.

The honeymoon period with Napster felt equally encouraging but once you hit the wall and have offlined everything worth offlining, you're exactly where you were with iTunes but now you have to pay for it forever with Apple Music.

The old iTunes model and the new Apple Music model are exactly the same from a content standpoint. The difference is that you have to pay to rent your music perpetually instead of buying it a-la-carte. Down the road, you may want out of Apple Music but you'll have to purchase the songs and playlists you've already paid to rent, they're being held hostage.

BJ

 

[Arndroid]

"Streaming for Discovery" can be had right now, for free, via iTunes Radio.

So now we have confirmed you have not even used Apple Music can we move on? Outside of new and for me or anything else you get to see tens or even many scores of songs related to a single track you might be interested in.

If you think that having to sit and listen and skip on a linear radio station is the same as having that same information, and more dispensed instantly that is on you.

 

[flur]

See my post above.

The honeymoon period with Napster felt equally encouraging but once you hit the wall and have offlined everything worth offlining, you're exactly where you were with iTunes but now you have to pay for it forever with Apple Music.

The old iTunes model and the new Apple Music model are exactly the same from a content standpoint. The difference is that you have to pay to rent your music perpetually instead of buying it a-la-carte. Down the road, you may want out of Apple Music but you'll have to purchase the songs and playlists you've already paid to rent, they're being held hostage.

BJ

And as I said above, it was NEW music I was finding, not old stuff. NEW music keeps coming out. There is no filling up unless musicians stop making music.

 

[boltjames]

While this is a slightly better analogy than comparing streaming to terrestrial radio, it's still way off. Record clubs worked like this: Pay a low buy-in cost to receive several albums (which were usually pressed specifically for the club with lower quality than a record store copy), then be forced to pay for X amount more albums at the prices set by the record club.

Furthermore, the record clubs would send you subsequent records of their choosing and charge you for them unless you specifically opted out and chose a different selection.

The only real equivalent between the two is the idea of subscriber lock in. The services provided and the relative value of the services are totally different. But it's cute that you're still trying.

Nope.

Like the Record Club, it's that early excitement of getting sooooo much music for so little money and then it's the long tail of month after month of having everything that you want and being forced to pay over and over again for it anyway.

This current 3 month trial period is your penny, the next 5 years are your lower quality pressings sent through the mail whether you want them or not.

BJ

 

[flur]

In the short-term, Apple Music will be a tremendous value to consumers of a specific age who have not amassed a decently sized Library of downloaded music. Many of the posters in this thread fall into this group and I get why they like it so much.

Wa-wait. You know how old everyone in this forum is? LOL. How old is it you think I am?

 

[Arndroid]

Artists? LOL.

Artists loved the days when recordings were sold in stores and the only thing a buyer had to go by was a single song they heard on the radio before they plunked down $12.99 and listened to the other 11 tracks at home. "Hey guys, the new Styx album is out and I just heard the single and it sounds good!" before going home, listening to Side 1 Cut 1 'Mr. Roboto' and going "WTF did I just buy"?

And what's sad is, Apple Music is just like that and you embrace it so easily. "Hey gang, I have a great idea! Let's pay Apple $120 a year so the record companies have no financial incentive to worry about quality! Pay for everything before hearing anything! Just like the old days of physical media and shrink wrap!" Genius.

BJ

Lol at you saying you make your purchasing decisions based on 30 seconds of a song deriding people who at least listen to a whole song.

For everyone else but you, as you dug through apple music just kind of make a note of the thirty second mark of a song a see if you got the feeling for the song. It is amazing how often this is a horrible representation of a song. Better previewing the middle thirty seconds or last thirty seconds.

I am pretty sure most artists would want people to hear their song entirely as opposed to an aborted clip. Well except for Led Zepplin. First 30 seconds of Stairway to Heaven really sell it.

So you use preview clips and radio to discover new music then pay a dollar plus a track. Yeah sounds like you got us suckers beat. Yet my accessible music library will always be more than yours by a huge margin. And stop belittling thirty million tracks. That means there are ten, one hundred, one thousand, ten thousand tracks out there for millions of people. So I know what I am getting for an affordable price. Enjoy buying songs after listening to thirty seconds of them. In the history of music that is up there with the worst ways to a) listen to music b) purchase music.

 

[Arndroid]

That's not how it works from a business sense. Apple and the record companies simply want to generate more money from the investment and infrastructure they already have in place. They just want to turn that $12 a year into $120 a year. They want you to think that you're getting $120 worth of value when they're offering you less. Think about it:

If you spent $120 a year right now in iTunes you'd get 120 song files to own permanently along with free iTunes Radio with custom stations for discovery.

If you spend $120 a year right now in Apple Music you get 0 song files to own permanently along with Radio and Deep Catalog for discovery.

In the end, Apple is getting $120 and you're getting nothing but a Deep Catalog which, for most people, is going to be a lot more limited than 120 song files a year would have been, and you'd get to own them indefinitely instead of paying $120 a year for the next 30 years. There isn't enough old stuff to sustain the expense for more than a few years and there isn't enough new music to sustain the expense in each coming year. The goal is to trick iTunes users to ditch the physical library for the streamed library and keep those $120 payments coming each year.




You can't make that argument because free iTunes Radio exists and, sit down when you read this: That ironically allows me to listen to and discover MORE songs than you. The Beatles are available on iTunes Radio. The Beatles are not available on Apple Music Radio/Playlists. Same for Prince, Jay-Z, etc.



True, I won't deny that. Apple Music has some cool features. But they are all about convenience, not quality, and convenience wears off very quickly.

BJ

Please stop misusing that $12 a year number. That is based on iTunes accounts versus music iTunes sold. Most iTunes accounts have nothing to do with the iTunes music store. I have multiple iTunes accounts none of them were ever created for the intent to buy music. Even if I did with one of them the others would not count. Plus I mentioned that iTunes is not the only place to buy music.

If you take the total music revenue in 2014 divided by the current U.S. Population it is $21.2 a year for every man woman, child, baby, everyone.