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

[Arndroid]

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

Yeah all those dollars add up though and it's not ten times more. Do you literally just listen to one song a month?

 

[Arndroid]

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?

Yeah but what if all the streaming services shut down at same time! Then your screwed! I know that streaming revenue surpassed cd sales in 2014 but what if!!!!!!

 

[shandyman]

Yeah but what if all the streaming services shut down at same time! Then your screwed! I know that streaming revenue surpassed cd sales in 2014 but what if!!!!!!

What if a massive EMP goes off worldwide and there's no more internet ever. All that money wasted...

 

[johngordon]

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.

Sorry - if you read back a few posts you'll get the satire / irony of my previous post.

 

[shandyman]

Sorry - if you read back a few posts you'll get the satire / irony of my previous post.

Although, he just proves how absurd BoltJames is being. Kudos.

 

[johngordon]

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

What specific age? I'm 44, with a library of over 1000 albums and still listen to quite a bit of new music, as well as new to me music.

I don't think its really comparable to the record club thing because that wouldn't have given you access to virtually all music for you to listen to.

You're big mistake in all of this is your suggestion that 10-12 albums a year is somehow extreme or hardcore. It really isn't.

As someone else said earlier, your $12 per year average figure is going to be flawed, because its based on all iTunes accounts, when it would be much better if it was based on iTunes accounts users who bought music. Or who buy music semi regularly.

Its not as though $0 is the minimum per year, $12 is the average, and $24 is the maximum.

You still keep assuming that people will soon have everything they ever want even though lots of new music is coming out all the time.

I never have quite understood how you claim to be a big music fan, but then say you have virtually no interest in new music.

 

[johngordon]

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

To be fair the next 5 years aren't that at all.

They are actually access to virtually all new music released in that 5 years.

Or have I misunderstood and the record club in your analogy provided people with recordings of virtually every track released?

 

[shandyman]

What specific age? I'm 44, with a library of over 1000 albums and still listen to quite a bit of new music, as well as new to me music.

I've noticed he's generalising and making things up based on his own situation.

Im 34, a medium library of my own, I like new and old music, so Apple Music is a no brained for me. A friend of mine has Apple Music, I never expected him to go for it, he has over 150,000 songs in his library, he's also 34. He still loves finding new music, whether it's brand new, or old stuff that's new to him.
The point is, you cannot make wild assumptions and generalisations.

 

[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

OK - well here's the thing.

Apple Music is not aimed at people who buy one album a year.

That Apple Music is not aimed at those people does not make it flawed, and does not make Apple scam artists trying to rip people off.

The music is not being held hostage because anyone using it knows they are not buying the music.

Its like arguing that Netflix are holding their content hostage if you stop subscribing.

That's how subscription works.

 

[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

These adverts your posting are totally irrelevant. You're just getting more and more absurd....

Also, I see the subtle comment that all new music is rubbish thrown in there. Which further invalidates your arguments.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

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

Especially as one can buy tracks very cheaply on iTunes these days.

Apple are currently promoting a Rock Ballads album for £4.99. It has fifty famous tracks. That's 10p a track. So, you could get 1,200 songs a year for the price of Apple Music! Most people barely hear 12 songs a year they want to buy, let alone 120. 1,200?

The whole premise of Apple Music is one big rip-off. Labels are desperate for everyone to waste money just like they did in the days of buying albums.

 

[Benjamin Frost]

But it already costs $50 for 50 tracks, so you would be getting an ton of extra stuff (i.e. all the streaming functionality) for free.

If it doesn't justify the expense for you, that is subjectively a shame for you.

But it does not make Apple Music objectively flawed.

Stop saying you when you mean I.

Very few people are going to subscribe to Apple Music or Spotify and only listen to 12 songs a year. And when I say "very few" I mean virtually no-one.

Describing Apple Music as a complete scam because people will pay $120 for 12 tracks is an utterly, utterly, ludicrous way to look at it.

But you wouldn't really be getting much extra for free, because it's already been proven over many years that streaming has intrinsically very low value.

A hybrid scheme really would be the best for the consumer, because it would encourage discovery and help sales at the same time; and the listener would be left with something to keep long-term.

It would, I think, lead to a revival in fortunes of the whole music world. Streaming alone is a dark, profitless path that is destroying music.

 

[Spankey]

See, this is how you post a fair and reasonable post if streaming is not for you. It's a fair enough opinion, streaming isn't for everyone.

I only question the family plan point, I don't think any service is lower than $15? Spotify is $5 per person after the first person, so a family of 4 is $25. Think Apple might have the best deal for that, as $15 for up to 6 people.

I'm not really expecting the price to be lower or thinking the price is unfair. It just has to be a price where it makes me go all in and consider dropping my other outlets. Like I said..close...not smoking the cigar just yet.

 

[Supermallet]

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

Again, it's a cute analogy but not an accurate one.

AM is telling you upfront what you're going to pay for continual unlimited access. And unlike record clubs, you can cancel at any time without having to fulfill some predetermined dollar amount. At no point do you own anything you listen to on AM, so you lose nothing but access.

Record clubs locked you in with a financial obligation. They're sending you those albums on the cheap because you're on the hook for a set amount of overpriced albums in the future.

AM doesn't work like that at all. You can quit anytime, there are no extra charges at any time beyond the basic membership fee, and you have continual access to the full AM library.

It's really no different than Netflix streaming or Hulu streaming. When I watch The Warriors on Netflix, I have no illusion that I own it. If I cancel Netflix, I know I won't be able to continue watching movies and shows on it.

I do look forward to your next inaccurate analogy that you'll hammer into the ground and will be torn apart by everyone else on here.

 

[boltjames]

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.

I've used Apple Music for the better part of two weeks and I'm unimpressed.

It's simply not a good service. I'm glad it works for you though.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

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

Not old enough to have amassed a large iTunes collection via download. The only redeeming feature of Apple Music is it's Spotify feature, so if you don't have any Whitney Houston, Abba, or Doobie Brothers you're all set now.

BJ

 

[Spankey]

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

We may be the only farts who remember this. How many times did you cancel and the sign up again under a different name, etc.

 

[flur]

Not old enough to have amassed a large iTunes collection via download. The only redeeming feature of Apple Music is it's Spotify feature, so if you don't have any Whitney Houston, Abba, or Doobie Brothers you're all set now.

BJ

And how old would that be?

 

[shandyman]

It's simply not a good service.

"Not a good service for me", is what you should say.

 

[shandyman]

Not old enough to have amassed a large iTunes collection via download. The only redeeming feature of Apple Music is it's Spotify feature, so if you don't have any Whitney Houston, Abba, or Doobie Brothers you're all set now.

BJ

What do you class as a large collection? Cos I'll prove you wrong with my earlier post....

I'm 34, a medium library of my own, I like new and old music, so Apple Music is a no brained for me. A friend of mine has Apple Music, I never expected him to go for it, he has over 150,000 songs in his library, he's also 34. He still loves finding new music, whether it's brand new, or old stuff that's new to him.

Plus you're constantly ignoring anything in my posts that prove your points are biased, presenting your opinion as fact....

 

[Pagemakers]

"Not a good service for me", is what you should say.

Disagree. Apple Music is not a good product at the moment. It's very buggy, confusing, messy, illogical. Not very good.

 

[Arndroid]

I've used Apple Music for the better part of two weeks and I'm unimpressed.

It's simply not a good service. I'm glad it works for you though.

BJ

Given your posts you have not really presented anything that makes one believe. You have earnestly tried apple music for two weeks.

 

[shandyman]

Disagree. Apple Music is not a good product at the moment. It's very buggy, confusing, messy, illogical. Not very good.

Again, for you. I know about 20 friends that have signed up, a couple had some issues, but the rest have been fine. Although there are some problems, but show me something that launched perfectly free from bugs.... It's not perfect, but it'll improve. Hell, I know people that had Spotify for 2 years before realising they could have stuff for offline listening.

 

[johngordon]

But you wouldn't really be getting much extra for free, because it's already been proven over many years that streaming has intrinsically very low value.

A hybrid scheme really would be the best for the consumer, because it would encourage discovery and help sales at the same time; and the listener would be left with something to keep long-term.

It would, I think, lead to a revival in fortunes of the whole music world. Streaming alone is a dark, profitless path that is destroying music.

People's perception of how much value something has is not necessarily the same as its actual value.

One of the weirdest things about the internet age is people's often unrealistic value of things they can get on the internet. Anything from websites, to apps and music. I often see apps that might have been sold for $30 or more as computer software, and then see people complaining if an app costs $3. Its ridiculous.

Clearly if it costs $50 for five new albums, then its a little unrealistic to expect to get those five new albums, plus the entire streaming service for a year for $50.

 

[johngordon]

Again, for you. I know about 20 friends that have signed up, a couple had some issues, but the rest have been fine. Although there are some problems, but show me something that launched perfectly free from bugs.... It's not perfect, but it'll improve. Hell, I know people that had Spotify for 2 years before realising they could have stuff for offline listening.

Exactly. I've read a lot about it being a mess and confusing, but I'm not sure what the fuss is about.

Five tabs at the bottom:

For You - stuff recommended based on my library and likes
New - new stuff
Radio - radio
Connect - the social aspect where artists can upload / post stuff
My Music - my music library, including stuff I have added from Apple Music

Am I supposed to believe I am unusually intelligent because I don't find that confusing at all?

Maybe I should be flattered, but really?

I'm sure its like a lot of things though - what you get out of it depends on what effort you put in to it.