The argument isn't about one being better than the other, as the answer to that is subjective, depending on your situation. The argument is really just that boltjames is dictatorially stating that streaming is a ripoff for the entire world, because it doesn't suit his needs. The rest of us are saying that streaming is all about individual needs. For my friend that has hundreds of thousands of songs already, he doesn't need streaming. For my friend that only really owns about 20 albums, streaming works for them.
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
The argument isn't about one being better than the other, as the answer to that is subjective, depending on your situation. The argument is really just that boltjames is dictatorially stating that streaming is a ripoff for the entire world, because it doesn't suit his needs. The rest of us are saying that streaming is all about individual needs. For my friend that has hundreds of thousands of songs already, he doesn't need streaming. For my friend that only really owns about 20 albums, streaming works for them.
I buy stuff and I rent stuff. It depends on the situation. If I had the option to buy one car or pay the same to be able to drive nearly any car on earth, at any time I felt like it, I would rent. I would need a much bigger garage, though.It boils down to this: are you a renter or a buyer?
You're saying that Apple should only cater to a select few by charging a high price.
I think Apple should try and include as many as possible to use Apple Music by having a much lower price-perhaps $12 a year. At $120 a year, I think Apple will get a very small percentage of their user base, which is sad, both for them and also for the musicians.
Think of it as a loss-leader. Entice the punters to streaming with a nominal fee or with a hybrid solution, and lead them to water, the iTunes Store. Apple are competing with free when it comes to streaming.
It boils down to this: are you a renter or a buyer?
People rent property because they can't afford it. If they could, they would buy. Otherwise, they are throwing money down the drain.
Music is rather more affordable, which is why we buy it. Renting it is throwing money away. That's why no-one in the UK pays to listen to the radio.
You do have that option. Its called the iTunes Music store.
So out of interest, what would you expect to get for your $12 a year? Given that it wouldn't currently get you much more than one single album.
I disagree that the group of people who would buy more than one album a month, or see AM as better value even if they would spend less than that = "a select few.
It likely = tens of millions of people.
Last edited:
The loss leader only makes sense if it leads the consumer somewhere. If you can get unlimited streaming for $12 per YEAR, what is the incentive to buy from iTunes?
This contradicts itself entirely. Buying something outright when you only wish to have it for a period of time is throwing money down the drain.
If I just need a car for X amount of short time, I'm going to rent it. Not spend $25,000 on it and then stop using it.
I own a $60,000 BMW. The first 2 years are free, the $140 isn't included in anything, it's not something I actually pay for, it's a promotion to get new subscribers, no different than what Apple Music is doing.
BJ
I love music, wouldn't have amassed a 25,000 song collection if I didn't.
I am against paying record companies for a substandard product, and the only way to encourage them to make better product and break edgy bands is to hurt them in the pocketbook; Apple Music is the enemy of superior music. What I hear on the radio 90% of the time is enough to keep me entertained, it's only the real standout bands that are worth my $12 per album, certainly not going to spend $12 a month to hear Katy Perry and "Shut Up And Dance With Me".
BJ
That's pretty naive if you think that the cost of the service is not part of that $60k you spent.
Cars don't last forever, they lose their technological edge after 3 years, they get unsafe, and they bleed you dry on out of warranty repairs. It's a depreciating asset. The way to avoid that trap is to perpetually be in new cars fully under warranty. It's what rich people do.
'Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds' sounds just as good today as it did in 1967. No loss of sonic quality, no loss of artistry. There is no need to lease it when it performs identically for the rest of time.
BJ
What I'm saying is that if "discovery" in Apple Music was working properly it would have looked at my purchase history, looked at my playcount, looked at how often I listen to their songs, and found a way to get the message that the new Tame Impala album was released yesterday.
Making things worse, Tame Impala released a few singles these past few months and Apple Music didn't get any of them onto my radar either in For You, as a song mixed into a custom Playlist, nothing. The one time I actually needed Apple Music to shout something at me it didn't. Instead, it created a playlist called "The Essential Billy Joel" including songs I already had in my purchased Library.
I owe that discovery to you, friend. If I didn't Google Tame Impala to refresh my memory as to when they appeared on Jimmy Fallon I wouldn't have seen the top search result which said "new Tame Impala LP breaks new ground". Google. LOL. Way to go Apple.
BJ
You get Apple Music for $12 a year.
But I prefer a hybrid model: spend $10 on music in iTunes and get streaming for a month thrown in. That way, you get to explore more stuff and may be enticed into buying more music. It's a win for everyone.
Also, it would have been so much better if they had simply made iTunes fully streamable, rather than have a whole new system separate from it. That way, you could simply go to iTunes and either stream or buy. Simple and easy to understand. If you spent $10, Apple simply flicks a switch, and BOOM! You browse iTunes and listen to stuff full-length instead of with the 90 second preview.
I feel that Steve Jobs would have implemented some such similar idea. He was always about making technology accessible to the great unwashed.
I have an iPhone 6 and I only need to gently depress my finger on the home button for fingerprint recognition.
Can you please make one valid argument for the need for Apple Music that isn't a minor convenience feature? What we've heard for the past few days are "you don't need to hit the buy button", "it's automatically in my playlists", and now "I don't have to type in a password". Surely that isn't worth $120 a year. Please tell us what is.
BJ
No, but what they will do is say "Hey, we need a Lady GaGa clone because Label A has Katy Perry and Label B has Ariana Grande" and "We need to sign another act off of a reality TV contest show because Label C has One Direction".
There was a time where every month or every other month a great new band was emerging back in the early 90's circa Nirvana and REM and Lenny Kravitz and today it's all about cute girls making selfie kissy faces. Apple Music enables more of same.
BJ
Exactly Ben, exactly.
I don't mind a good internet argument pro/con Apple Music, but there seems to be a lack of understanding of just how small this market is. Best case it's 3% of all iTunes users, probable case it'll be adopted by only 1.5%. Still millions of people, still cool, but it's not this Earth shattering service that's a breakthru for all mankind. A bunch of hardcore music junkies used to spending $150 a year getting what amounts to a coupon at $120. BFD.
BJ
Record companies have always done this. Capitol signs The Beatles? Decca signs The Rolling Stones. Label A hits it big with The Backstreet Boys? Label B signs N Sync. And so on.
There will always be manufactured music, and there will always be artists who will do what they want to do. The trick is to ignore the manufactured music (which you cannot do if you listen to terrestrial radio, by the way), and find the good stuff. It's there, despite your adamant claims that all the good music's been made and now only 12 good songs get released each year.
+1
Spot on, Brother Artimus, spot on.
Apple Music is a way for record companies to mint money on the old stuff so they don't have to try hard on the new stuff. And in the end, I'm not letting my 11 year old daughter build her own iTunes Library full of rented songs because by the time she's 21 she'll lose interest and dump it and it'll all be a waste of time. My 14 year old son, he'll never lose interest in music, but he'll resent the fact that major bands he loves are exclusive to Spotify or Tidal and he is being held hostage, pay that $120 a year or else. It's anti-consumer, it's very wrong for Apple to go down this path.
BJ
Yeah, but we know how this plays out. For a 20 year old this will be like 1999 and Napster where we pulled all-nighters for a week to download all the songs we every wanted and then after that week only went to Napster when a new disc we wanted was being released.
After the first month of "I just took 10,000 songs offline in Apple Music for $12!" euphoria wears off, you realize it's the Columbia Record Club. You got a huge amount of songs for nothing but now you have to pay for that gluttony forever.
BJ
Yeah, but we know how this plays out. For a 20 year old this will be like 1999 and Napster where we pulled all-nighters for a week to download all the songs we every wanted and then after that week only went to Napster when a new disc we wanted was being released.
After the first month of "I just took 10,000 songs offline in Apple Music for $12!" euphoria wears off, you realize it's the Columbia Record Club. You got a huge amount of songs for nothing but now you have to pay for that gluttony forever.
BJ
My only thing is that I generally get sick of an album or song after a few months so if I don't own it I'm fine with that. I also always have the option to purchase a album if I like it so much. They don't make classics anymore so I don't see the need to really own albums or songs. Its not like a new Led Zeppelin group or album is around anymore. Time have changed music is disposable now. Listen to it then throw it away. YMMV
This has to be the funniest thing I have read on this forum yet. May I ask how old your kids are? If they are in their teens, they may very well be the first kids in history that want to hear the same music as their parents.
If you lease it, you don't own it. Frankly, I'm surprised that you are complaining about a $10/month subscription while at the same time throwing away lots of money by perpetually leasing new BMWs.
That kind of says it all.
The quality of music in the past twenty years has fundamentally deteriorated significantly. I think this is because we are drowning in too much of everything. Music is a very precious thing, but we are too busy to give it its proper care and attention.
It's not just music that has suffered; it's all art forms. Culture itself.
Has there ever been a generation that didn't say things like this as they grew older, usually accompanied by a heavy sigh?
Perhaps. But that's really up to the individual, isn't it? On the other hand, we also have access to a much wider spectrum of music today. It used to be that you were mostly limited to what was played on the radio or happened to be in stock in the record stores (mostly driven by a handful of big music labels). Today, we have access to a lot more older, niche and indie music, since the cost of publishing and distributing music has dropped by orders of magnitude.
- Status