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

[Supermallet]

I should have clarified:

I'm a 47 year old father and have a 20,000 song music collection from ripped CD's and purchased iTunes tracks. I believe that the current state of American and Eurpoean music is awful, it's all teeny girl Ariana Grande and faux hipster folk and where I used to discover a few new Alternative and Rock bands each year a decade ago today it's a vast wasteland.

I can see how a 20 year old with a small music library can discover Van Halen or Oasis and be blown away for a month on the 100s of back catalog songs and look forward to the new Taylor Swift LP. That just doesn't apply to me. Nor my kids, for that matter. I've got them covered.

BJ

So it's a "I know what I like and I like what I know" scenario for you, I get it.

I'm in my 30s and have a collection that's easily five times larger than yours, and the reason for that is I'm constantly seeking out and consuming new music. A streaming service is a godsend for someone like me. For the price of one album per month, 12 albums per year, I get unlimited access to tens of millions of songs, recommendations for new music, and streaming of my existing library (at this point only a portion of it due to the size). I'm on an unlimited data plan so I'm not concerned about overages either.

So really, it's not that AM is a bad value proposition, it's just not right for you. Which is fine, but for many people it's a great value.

 

[Zxxv]

Apple Watch and Apple Music. Not very impressed in the post-Jobs era.

BJ

How do you know both aren't his visions?

He was at the helm when Ping came along. How do you know he didn't want to move Ping into what apple music is?

 

[Supermallet]

I've been thinking the very same thing myself. This is simply Apple's long-term play to lock people into renting music and paying monthly fees until they die.

My other concern is that it takes away the ability for consumers to vote with their wallet. If I like a band, I buy the CD and they get rewarded. If I don't like their sound, I keep my money and they go look for other careers. Natural selection at work.

Under the bundled, rented, all-you-can-eat model, there's less incentive for quality. Just like cable TV: Bundled crap (with the odd nugget in there if you can find it)

I'm confused. Nothing about AM prevents you from buying an album you really love. You can still vote with your wallet. Also, the music you listen to determines who gets paid. Don't like Drake? Don't listen to him and you're voting with your wallet. Love Future Islands? Listening to them gives them a payout.

There's nothing wrong with a rental model of you understand how it works. I use Netflix for a lot of movies but I purchase the ones I really love on Blu-Ray. Same concept here, rent for the large catalog, buy individual highly valued albums.

 

[doug in albq]

Boltjames, you must have really "hit a note" (no pun intended) with your original post, as you got hit hard by half a dozen apoligists in a row.

Apple Music and Apple Watch are both sub-par products, this is the truth.

 

[shandyman]

This is exceptionally true and *not* what I want.

So much of the excitement is "all the music in the world - add it to your library - play it anywhere and anytime (with data usage that is...or download it, more data)...

....but if you EVER stop paying the monthly fee?

It's all gone.

Not for me at all.

I have unlimited data on my home connection (Sky Fibre £24) and also unlimited data on my mobile tariff (Three - £35pm), so no data costs here. I have a copy of my entire music library prior to Apple Music so if I stop my Apple music plan, then I can go back to what I had. Easy.....

 

[Supermallet]

Boltjames, you must have really "hit a note" (no pun intended) with your original post, as you got hit hard by half a dozen apoligists in a row.

Apple Music and Apple Watch are both sub-par products, this is the truth.

Oh good, it's the arbiter of truth here to explain to us poor peons how deluded we are.

"Apologists" and "haters" are two labels that are functionally meaningless here. Oh, you complained about something Apple did? Must be a hater. No, wait! You liked something Apple did? We got an apologist over here!

There's an actual discussion going on here about use cases for Apple Music. BJ is explaining why it doesn't work for him. Others are explaining why it works for us. Nothing that requires hating or apologizing for anything.

And the Apple Watch isn't even part of the discussion (or it shouldn't be anyway, it's got nothing to do with Apple Music at the moment).

 

[turbineseaplane]

I have a copy of my entire music library prior to Apple Music so if I stop my Apple music plan, then I can go back to what I had. Easy.....

Yes...but if you ever quit, *all* the changes, modifications, playlists, tweaks...literally all the things you do to your library will be lost back to the point of when you first joined (other than purchases along the way).

That's a non-starter for lots of us. Imagine using Apple Music for 2-3 years and then stopping. It'd be a nightmare mess to try to manually purchase and create and organize all the changes you'd made while using Apple Music those years.

For me it's better to just not get into that "rent or your library tanks" model to begin with.

The "Co-mingling" of what is rented/owned isn't a direction I want to go in personally.

Sounds like you don't mind.
To each our own.

 

[shandyman]

Yeah, but *all* the changes, modifications, playlists, tweaks...

....EVERYthing you do to your library will be lost back to the point of when you first joined.

That's a non-starter for lots of us. Imagine using Apple Music for 2-3 years and then stopping. It'd be a nightmare mess to try to manually purchase and create and organize all the changes you'd made while using Apple Music those years.

For me it's better to just not get into that "rent or your library tanks" model to begin with.

Sounds like you don't mind.
To each our own.

At least I'll still have what I liked. Anything new, if I want it enough, I can get it. Simple as. Unless you're just wanting to make it complicated so you can argue.

 

[turbineseaplane]

At least I'll still have what I liked. Anything new, if I want it enough, I can get it. Simple as. Unless you're just wanting to make it complicated so you can argue.

How will you know what was in your playlists?

I just have no interest in co-mingling the rental/ownership aspects.

 

[Supermallet]

Yes...but if you ever quit, *all* the changes, modifications, playlists, tweaks...literally all the things you do to your library will be lost back to the point of when you first joined (other than purchases along the way).

That's a non-starter for lots of us. Imagine using Apple Music for 2-3 years and then stopping. It'd be a nightmare mess to try to manually purchase and create and organize all the changes you'd made while using Apple Music those years.

For me it's better to just not get into that "rent or your library tanks" model to begin with.

The "Co-mingling" of what is rented/owned isn't a direction I want to go in personally.

Sounds like you don't mind.
To each our own.

Okay, I see what you mean. It's less an issue of renting versus owning and more about the fact that Apple Music essentially takes over your whole library while you're using it, and if you ever stop using it, it could leave your library in something of a shambles. That's a valid concern.

However, do we know if that's the case? If I make a playlist on my iTunes and I have iCloud Music Library on, and it's a mix of my personal files and Apple Music files, does the whole playlist disappear if I cancel AM, or does it just remove the AM files?

Or, more annoying, does it keep everything intact but then tell me I have to sign up for AM if I try to play an AM file?

 

[turbineseaplane]

Okay, I see what you mean. It's less an issue of renting versus owning and more about the fact that Apple Music essentially takes over your whole library while you're using it, and if you ever stop using it, it could leave your library in something of a shambles. That's a valid concern.

Precisely

They should be advertising a feature to "buy everything you added while using Apple Music" if you decide to leave - But I'm not sure how big of a hit it would be.....For many it might be a $1500 bill at some point...haha

Sort of reminds me of the old iPhone "pay up front" or "add it to your phone payments" situation...where people somehow convince themselves the phone was "free" or "not too bad", etc

So many people buy things that cost a lot annually, but just dismiss it as "it's only $xx.xx/month, no biggie!"

 

[Paco II]

It's a brave new world of streaming services. It's not hard to imagine a future where the *only* way to get music is by subscribing to a streaming service. Enjoy having a choice while you've got it.

How will you know what was in your playlists?

I just have no interest in co-mingling the rental/ownership aspects.

 

[Supermallet]

Well, I do think there's a lot of value in streaming services in general. And in terms of music, if you buy 12 or more albums per year at $10 a pop, than a subscription to a streaming service could save you a ton of money, since you get to listen to way more than 12 albums worth of music.

If you're someone who rarely listens to music outside of the radio or the albums you already own and love, then there's little value to it. But for people who listen to music at home, at work, on the go, as much as they can, streaming services are like mana from heaven.

 

[turbineseaplane]

It's not hard to imagine a future where the *only* way to get music is by subscribing to a streaming service.

I think we are a ways off from that.

If you're someone who rarely listens to music outside of the radio or the albums you already own and love, then there's little value to it.

Absolutely. It's great that Apple is still covering all ends of the spectrum.

 

[Bromeo]

Love this, and you're right that if I could simply replace Sirius XM with Apple Music it would be a worthy tradeoff.

But XM is just too easy, Bluetooth is just too inconvenient, and streaming costs too much money, especially with my kids and their $10 ATT overages here and there.

BJ

Very on point. Three things that kept me gravitating back to Sirius XM satellite subscriptions over the years of trying to replace it with streaming were: 1) car/home integration, 2) no data usage, and 3) real program hosts (at least on some channels).

On integration, a lot can be said for the convenience of just hopping into the car, putting the top down, and turning on the radio. Streaming services aren't quite there yet, but the automakers are getting a little better with integration (unfortunately, sometimes at the cost of making the whole infotainment system overly complex and slightly infuriating).

Another point can be made for broadcast in general. Broadcasting music over terrestrial AM/FM or satellites is remarkably efficient in how it scales up. You don't need individual network pipes to each listener. Streaming kind of rubs this the wrong way, at least in philosophy. Only now the data pipes are getting so massive and distributed that audio streams are a becoming a drop in the bucket. Seems weird now.

Program hosts and station bumpers give a human feeling to a channel (the best station bumpers were on XM's Lucy pre-merger). I thought Slacker had a great idea here with voice-tracked DJs you could turn on or off per-channel as you desired. They even worked in cached stations that you refreshed at least once every 30 days. I don't know if they ever took that beyond their Hits station.

One time I left XM "for good" (hahaha, I would soon be back) justifying that for the amount I was spending on satellite radio subs, I could buy a couple CDs a month and slowly build a collection that was mine to enjoy for the rest of my life. Problem was, that took more work than I was willing to put into it... still seems like a great way to go.

 

[kmj2318]

Oasis, Radiohead, Foo Fighters, Coldplay, Death Cab, Spoon, Interpol

Tell me the one band I missed out on that would have been equallymind-blowing that launched in the last year or two.

Or you could go back an explore every other genre of music that you somehow missed. Or just the dozens of other sub-genres in rock.

 

[Supermallet]

It's a brave new world of streaming services. It's not hard to imagine a future where the *only* way to get music is by subscribing to a streaming service. Enjoy having a choice while you've got it.

I don't see that ever being the case, to be honest. The artists and record companies do not love streaming services. Think about the economics of it.

In scenario A, the record company is releasing a physical product for purchase:

1. They sign the artist
2. They market the artist
3. They pay for the recording sessions
4. They package and distribute the material
5. All the profit from a purchase goes back to the record company (with a cut for the artist)

In scenario B, the record company is releasing solely for streaming:

1. They sign the artist
2. They market the artist
3. They pay for the recording sessions
4. They save a small cost by not packaging or distributing
5. Most of the profit from the subscription fees goes to the streaming service, with a small cut for the label (and a smaller cut for the artist)

Honestly, something like iTunes is an even better deal for record companies, because Apple doesn't take as big of a cut as they do in streaming, and people are spending $9.99 per album, not per month.

I think streaming is something that labels and artists have reluctantly agreed to in order to stem the tide of piracy. If I were a record label right now, I'd be scrambling to find a way to add value to my physical products. Already we're seeing tons of "Super Deluxe" versions of albums, packed with multiple discs and physical goodies that can't be replicated digitally. Vinyl is also making a comeback, which actually makes a lot of sense. Vinyl gives you a whole experience, with its large size and the equipment needed to play it. It's the exact opposite of streaming, which is great and convenient but you lose a certain je ne sais quois versus playing a record.

 

[Paco II]

Problem is, scenario A is already on the wane. Scenario B guarantees them a future. Plus, with streaming, it's a constant revenue stream for the labels and artists.

The days of owning music are slowly coming to an end.

I don't see that ever being the case, to be honest. The artists and record companies do not love streaming services. Think about the economics of it.

In scenario A, the record company is releasing a physical product for purchase:

1. They sign the artist
2. They market the artist
3. They pay for the recording sessions
4. They package and distribute the material
5. All the profit from a purchase goes back to the record company (with a cut for the artist)

In scenario B, the record company is releasing solely for streaming:

1. They sign the artist
2. They market the artist
3. They pay for the recording sessions
4. They save a small cost by not packaging or distributing
5. Most of the profit from the subscription fees goes to the streaming service, with a small cut for the label (and a smaller cut for the artist)

Honestly, something like iTunes is an even better deal for record companies, because Apple doesn't take as big of a cut as they do in streaming, and people are spending $9.99 per album, not per month.

I think streaming is something that labels and artists have reluctantly agreed to in order to stem the tide of piracy. If I were a record label right now, I'd be scrambling to find a way to add value to my physical products. Already we're seeing tons of "Super Deluxe" versions of albums, packed with multiple discs and physical goodies that can't be replicated digitally. Vinyl is also making a comeback, which actually makes a lot of sense. Vinyl gives you a whole experience, with its large size and the equipment needed to play it. It's the exact opposite of streaming, which is great and convenient but you lose a certain je ne sais quois versus playing a record.

 

[zone23]

Sounds to me like your data plan blows. Why not download the music you want to listen to while on WiFi so you don't use all your data? Make available offline. I look at like this instead of buying albums pay for AM. If you buy one album a month its paid for its self. Then to top it off for 5 more dollars my entire family can get as many albums or songs as they want every month again make available offline. Seems like a deal.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Sounds to me like your data plan blows. Why not download the music you want to listen to while on WiFi so you don't use all your data? Make available offline. I look at like this instead of buying albums pay for AM. If you buy one album a month its paid for its self. Then to top it off for 5 more dollars my entire family can get as many albums or songs as they want every month again make available offline. Seems like a deal.

But you can never stop paying!

 

[dmccloud]

I get how song affinity works and, trust me, iTunes knows enough about my tastes from the 2,000+ songs I've purchased there over the years and listened to on multiple iOS devices than a week with some red bubbles in the Music app.

What I am saying is that the service is good, not great, but the dealbreaker is that its ultimately too expensive and eats too much data. Those tradeoffs dramatically offset the upsides. $180 for the Family Plan and $120 in data overages x4 members is $660 and there's no way we spend that much on iTunes, there simply aren't 600 songs or 60 albums worth buying each year.

I'll take my personally curated iTunes Library and Playlists, thank you, and I'll continue to use iTunes Radio for the occasional backyard BBQ or dinner party. I'll buy my music a-la-carte as I've done since 2002 and that'll be that. It's sad to see Apple try to monetize something of so little value and treat its customers like fools. We're too smart for this. That's what's so disappointing. We're used to overpaying for quality; this is substandard.

BJ

The curation/customization in Apple Music is the Beats Music system/model, not what's already in iTunes. I've been a Beats Music subscriber for a while, and all of my stuff just propogated over to Apple Music.

 

[Paco II]

Correct. Music will soon be just another utility you pay for every month.

But you can never stop paying!

 

[turbineseaplane]

Correct. Music will soon be just another utility you pay for every month.

...even if that is the future, I will only join that world when I have no other option (which isn't now)

 

[johngordon]

Boltjames, you must have really "hit a note" (no pun intended) with your original post, as you got hit hard by half a dozen apoligists in a row.

Apple Music and Apple Watch are both sub-par products, this is the truth.

Apologists? For what exactly?

It's absolutely fine if the streaming subscription model isn't for some people.

But the suggestion that people who think it is for them are somehow "apologists" is utter BS frankly.

 

[Bromeo]

Precisely

They should be advertising a feature to "buy everything you added while using Apple Music" if you decide to leave - But I'm not sure how big of a hit it would be.....For many it might be a $1500 bill at some point...haha

Sort of reminds me of the old iPhone "pay up front" or "add it to your phone payments" situation...where people somehow convince themselves the phone was "free" or "not too bad", etc

So many people buy things that cost a lot annually, but just dismiss it as "it's only $xx.xx/month, no biggie!"

Apple has in the past promoted upgrades to iTunes+ (higher bitrate tracks) as well as "Complete Your Album" upgrade deals. I could see the possibility for Apple Music, either outright purchase, or a discounted "rent to own"... still, it would be a balance of what's better for the bottom line: creating a life-long customer and advocate with generous customer-centric policies, or create ecosystem stickiness at the cost of making some customers feel unfairly trapped, fueling the "walled garden" discontents.

I have gone through my own budget and consciously removed things that exact small monthly payments. The first year I did a financial decluttering, I calculated I saved nearly $660 a year, and if you add in the income taxes one must pay to afford that $660, it's nearly $1000 in income... annually.

I guess the question I'm trying to figure out right now is could Apple Music be a better fit for me than either Pandora or Sirius XM? I haven't figured that out yet. It's fun right now, though.