Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh come on!

The difference between "free radio" and "free radio and then buying stuff" is more than semantics. Its a fundamental difference between something being free, and something not being free.

You have argued throughout this discussion that AM music does not offer anything that free radio does not already offer. That that only holds true when you buy something pretty much blows that entire argument out of the water.

You must see that?

As for what AM is for people, I guess that will depend on the individual. But I would have thought that for many a big part of it is being able to listen to albums without having to buy them all.

[Post Note: "Free Services" is a term used so that I don't have to keep typing Pandora, iTunes Radio, FM Radio, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, artists websites, et al over and over again. BJ]

No, I don't see that. Here's what I see:

Exposure To New Music: Both Apple Music and Free Services offer tons of this. While I'd call this a tie, there are key artists missing from Apple Music and that's a very big negative.

Ease Of Purchase: Both Apple Music and iTunes Radio put users 2-clicks away from downloading a song into a personal Library. Dead even. Another tie.

Purchase Cost: Since the average iTunes user spends only $12 a year on music and Apple Music's cost of entry is a commitment for $120 a year in perpetuity, this is a clear win for iTunes Downloads. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get that one can download 10,000 songs in a weekend on Apple Music for $12 but you can't look at it that way. The 10,000 songs go =poof= if you stop paying $120 a year.

Complete Library: Apple Music looks like the clear winner here, but dig deeper and the ugly underbelly of the service exposes itself. Key artists like the Beatles, Prince, Neil Young, and others aren't participating. Competitors like Tidal and Spotify are locking up exclusive LP launches and exclusive artists. Like Netflix, once you play around and realize that only 5 of Tom Hanks' movies are available and Forrest Gump, Philadelphia, and Sleepless In Seattle aren't among them, things go south quickly. For now, Apple Music wins but in the future this may swing to iTMS + iTunes Radio. Stay tuned.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Wow. So many songs. 25,000 songs of the best music ever made. I guess there are about 15,000 songs in that great library that I don't own yet.

So I will start buying them now, and I will try to finish within the next 50 years.

That means, each year, I will be buying 300 songs. That's 25 songs per month, i.e. about 2-3 albums. That's somewhere between 12 and 30 bucks a month, if I buy complete albums.

That is clearly more expensive than a streaming service.
Yeah but you won't have any music made after 1985.
 
There are till plenty of good new bands emerging, so that's wrong too.

I would argue the ability of yutes to affordably access music via YouTube and very inexpensive streaming services is going to create some very interesting music in the next couple generations. Never have children been able to so affordably and easily access massive libraries of musics of all genres.

This is undoubtedly going to have a profound impact on music being created twenty years from now.
 
As above - you have repeatedly argued that AM offers nothing that free radio doesn't already offer.

That "free radio" now means "hearing something on the radio and then buying it" then it obviously isn't free. Yes - it is now abundantly clear that when you say that radio offers everything that AM does for free, that isn't the case at all.

Apple Music is two different services for the purpose of this segment of the conversation, stop blending them together and playing semantics:

1. "Discovery of new music". Custom Playlists, New, and For You are all paid Apple Music versions of iTunes Radio which does just as good a job with Custom Stations, New Music Stations, and Stock Stations.

2. "Downloading of music". It costs $120 a year to rent in Apple Music. It costs whatever a consumer wishes to pay to purchase songs in the iTMS.

Get it?

Should it be $1 to go to the cinema because people are used to watching stuff for free on the television?

No, don't be ridiculous. Free movies on TV are edited and full of commercials. People spend more on premium movie channels like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc. each year than go to the cinema so there's that.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
First off, given the rise in streaming, I doubt your numbers are going to hold for very long. Second, you're missing a rather obvious point: Apple Music is not a standalone product. It's designed to get people into Apple's ecosys

I noticed you ignored the rest of my post. Typical. Let's face it, streaming IS trending upwards, and physical sales/downloads are declining. That's the long and the short of it. So many of your assumptions are based on streaming being a blip in the marketplace. I'm telling you--it's not going to be a blip.

chartoftheday_3361_Streaming_services_in_the_US_n.jpg


"Streaming" is trending upwards. "Paid streaming" is not such a huge curve. Pandora, iTunes Radio, and iHeart Radio dominate with 75% of the market and they are FREE. Spotify and Apple Music are barely a blip on the radar.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
As for your other concerns, they are valid. But here's the thing. It's important to remember why streaming even came about. It was to combat piracy. If the services get too fragmented, too expensive, too meager in their offerings, people will go back to pirating. Right now, the reason streaming is a good deal for consumers and the record companies (artists not as much) is that it's so cheap (relative to the amount of money the same amount of music would cost you if you bought album by album or track by track) and so convenient that even pirates who have TB of music on their hard drives are hard pressed not to use it. In terms of recouping lost profits, streaming is the best bet for record companies right now.

Now, you will have some holdouts. Some big name players like Taylor Swift can play hardball. Some legends like Prince and Neil Young can hold their music hostage (and I should point out, Mr. "Free Music Is All Around Us", Prince has fought very hard for years to keep copies of his music off the internet, and even covers of his music, including that bastion of music discovery, YouTube). But ultimately, those are outliers. Taylor Swift is SO huge that people will buy her music--right now. If her sales begin to dip, prepare to see her music on every streaming service from here to Timbuktu. Neil Young and Prince are set, they don't need the meager revenue generated by streaming services. Neil Young is also trying to push hi-res downloads and his Pono player, so he has a vested interest in making streaming less desirable. That is a battle he is going to lose. Prince just hates his music being available outside of record stores for some reason, but he's Prince and he gets what he wants.

The Beatles are the big holdout at this point, again a band so beloved that people will continue to buy their music until the sun explodes. Also an outlier.

Most of the big names are available on streaming services, and it's in their interest to keep it that way. It's in the interest of record companies to keep streaming services broadly available and with the most music possible. The harder they become to use, the less content they have, the more pirating, not purchasing, will rise. The record companies know this. They're afraid of it. Afraid to death of it.

That being said, I agree with you about control. Of course the record companies want more control. All the media conglomerates want more control now that their man source of revenue--content--has been turned into digital bits that can be copied perfectly by anyone with a standard laptop. That's why we've seen the proliferation of DRM, and Netflix, and music streaming. But that doesn't mean that Netflix isn't a good value, or that streaming music isn't a good value. It's not a good value for long term storage of all the music you want to own, and I would never recommend someone use streaming exclusively without ever purchasing any music. But like with Netflix, you can use music streaming to listen to anything that catches your fancy, and then buy the few albums you really love or aren't available on the service. Netflix has tons of movies I'd like to watch, but I only need to own a subset of them because I love them so much that I know the ability to watch them whenever I want, wherever I want, and have a physical copy of it in case the license expires on Netflix or my internet goes out or whatever.

Same with music. I don't need to own every ABBA album, their greatest hits is fine (The Visitors is also worth owning, actually). But maybe I want to listen to more than what I can find on the greatest hits. Good luck getting that on the radio. But you know what I can do? Subscribe to AM or Spotify or Deezer or Rdio for $9.99 a month, listen to every ABBA album ever made, get my fill, maybe also listen to some Kanye, some Paul McCartney, some War on Drugs, Tame Impala, David Bowie, and Deerhoof. And maybe I'll hear something I didn't know before, and think it might be worth buying. Or maybe, after three listens in a month, I'm done and don't need to buy it. But you can't say I didn't get my money's worth if a single one of those albums cost $9.99 or more on iTunes.

Good post. Agree with it all.

BJ
 
Yeah, hidden costs like a $5 thumb drive as a backup. Ooh, stop the presses.

The hidden costs of streaming services are massive down the road. Just you wait until some new album from some new artist is unavailable in Apple Music and the iTunes Music Store. Just you wait until Tidal or Spotify or some streaming service owned by a record company itself fragments the entire online industry just like cable TV networks. It's all coming. It's going to cost you a fortune.

BJ

Lol I don't think your music is properly backed up to preserve it. But since you didn't pay for most of it I guess it doesn't matter to you.

Your mystery hidden costs for streaming don't jibe with reality and your ideas on fragmentation are absurd. There are only going to be a couple major streaming services in the next five years.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
Please read what I write instead of imagining what you think someone with my point of view would write.

There is a reason why so few people spend money in iTunes for downloads these days- they already have huge libraries so full of songs they can't possibly listen to all of them anyway, so the incremental tracks become less important. You may love peanut butter but if you have a cellar full of the stuff it becomes more of a burden than something you enjoy.

Under 30 and no big library? Apple Music is great. Have at it. Spend the $120 a year. Makes perfect sense.

Over 30 with a big library? Save your money.

BJ

You are so far away from reality with your perceptions I don't even know what to tell you.

You think everyone has massive libraries of iTunes bought music which is insane. I don't get how you can be so out of touch with how the rest of the world behaves.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
I'm really beginning to like Apple Music. Except for some songs greyed out, I have no bugs whatsoever. Also love the playlists by Apple/Curators and Beats 1 also (though there is too much rap/talking at some times but ok).

Big fan, definitely a keeper :)

One thing I have found, in some cases, songs are greyed out in certain albums but then are available on others. So if I come across a greyed out track I do a search and often times I can find it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
Here, I'll say it in a way that perhaps you can understand:

Anyone in their 40s and 50s who was interested in music as an enthusiast already has thousands of songs and doesn't need any more.

Savvy?

BJ
That's just weird and not something 95% of the people in their 40s and 50s would agree with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
Back Catalog: Anyone over the age of 34 already has all the old music they want because it was so easy to get from 1996-2002 and then when iTunes made it legit.

New Stuff: Not enough being produced to make a difference, at least in the Genre's that I frequent like Alternative, Rock, Pop, etc.

Flawed Argument: That would be yours, that more than 1.5% of iTunes users would want to pay $120 a year for a medium that right now they spend $12 on, and most spend $0 on.

Crux: People under the age of 35 care less and less about music as their ages go down. My 11 year old daughter hums a few songs and asks me to put a certain XM station on the car radio but she hasn't asked me to buy her a song, ever. My 14 year old son pulls down the albums that I purchase as we have a shared account and he likes my taste in music, again, has never asked me to buy him a song or artist he found on his own. My 17 year old son just bought a used BMW without Bluetooth or satellite and is happily rummaging through my 25,000 song collection to burn CDR's of tracks he likes because he heard them while playing Grand Theft Auto 5. That's the State Of The Union of music in 2015.

BJ
I love that the primary crux of your argument is theft. Jesus Christ.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
You are a special case, a 1%'er. Apple Music is terrific under two circumstance which I've said multiple times before:

1. Newb without a library or family into music.
2. Extremist who routinely spends more than $120 a year.

Apple Music is just a coupon for you, just a discount, just a promotion. Instead of paying as you go off the menu you have a smorgasbord. You're in the minority. You wind up with some interesting features and a fair-thee-well demeanor about taking songs offline, but you lose several artists who won't allow streaming (Beatles, Prince, Neil Young, many others). It's not some quantum leap here. It's not like the introduction of Cable TV, the iPhone, and other Earth shattering mind blowing technologies.

You've just gotten more music for less money. Congratulations. Burger King sent me a buy 1 Whopper get 1 free coupon too so I know how you're feeling.

BJ
I have a much bigger library than you (which I actually paid for unlike you) yet I spend very little to no money buying music anymore yet I find streaming an awesome value.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
Here's what we know:

In a world where the average person only spends $12 a year on music and less than 2% of all iTunes users subscribe to a streaming service, Apple has released a new streaming service that makes sense only for the most hardcore of music listener. Such as yourself. So it makes sense that you think it's awesome. The other 98% of us will vote with our wallets, as we always do, and Apple Music will never be more than a niche product for a niche audience.

Pity because with a better pricing and feature structure it might have worked for most of us. I don't need the deep catalog and I don't need offline files. I like the better versions of iTunes Radio, would pay a nominal sum for that.

BJ
Literally everything you wrote above is 100% wrong.
 
Assumption 476.

I doubt this is actually true.

If you were determined you could download lot of stuff from Napster. But it required a bit of knowledge, it was time consuming, you ran the risk of downloading garbage or even virus, and it was illegal.

A streaming subscription has none of those issues.

So I suspect there are plenty of people who would not have used Napster but would use a streaming service.


It is silly arguing the economics of music with a guy who keeps touting his 25k music library of which he only paid for a small fraction of the music in it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
Streaming Playlists/Radio + Offline = Apple Music
Streaming Radio + Downloads = iTunes Music Store

The "streaming" part is the same for both services; the difference is in that one has 'offline' listening as rentals and the other 'downloads' as purchases. Are we really going to get into semantics here?



The typical Honda sells for $23,000 in the United States. If Honda suddenly came out with a $200,000 car it's not going to sell very well as it's not who their buyer is.



Everyone who has a Library that big had 1 spectacular year where they pulled down 10,000 songs from friends, relatives, CD collections, and Napster followed by some very shallow years where it was just 1 or 2 albums worth of material off of iTunes.

So being a hardcore 1%'er means you're pulling down 1-2 albums a month here in 2015 whereas statistics say the average iTunes user pulls down just 1 album per year here in 2015.

Overall size of collection = interested in music and opportunistic when free stuff abounds.
Monthly expenditure = hardcore, has the time to engage with 25 to 50 albums a year.

Just like the unlimited card for a cinema isn't about to be priced at $10 a year because that's the average amount people spend going to the cinema in a year.

People have a funny way of settling in and ultimately telling businesses what something is worth, don't they? Two slices of pizza and a Coke cost $2.99 in New York, no one is going to pay $29.99 because it's served on a gold doily.

BJ[/QUOTE]
The bottom line is you are a guy who illegally acquired the bulk of his music collection and won't pay $10 a month for streaming. Why should the music industry or music listeners pay you any heed?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
There is nothing fundamentally new about Apple Music. There is no 'wow' feature that is gamechanging. It's iterative. It's just a new delivery model. This isn't like the first time someone saw Color TV, the first time someone experienced Cable TV, the first time someone flew on a jet aircraft, the first time someone picked up an iPhone. This is a yawn.

I have a great idea for this thread though. Let's shift gears and discuss what's really bothering most people when you take the finances out of it. We say "its too expensive", you say "its a great value". Let's move past that:

What happens when you want to hear Prince and take his work offline and you find out you can't?

What happens when you are fed a customized Southern Folk Singer-Songwriter Essentials playlist and it has no
There is nothing fundamentally new about Apple Music. There is no 'wow' feature that is gamechanging. It's iterative. It's just a new delivery model. This isn't like the first time someone saw Color TV, the first time someone experienced Cable TV, the first time someone flew on a jet aircraft, the first time someone picked up an iPhone. This is a yawn.

I have a great idea for this thread though. Let's shift gears and discuss what's really bothering most people when you take the finances out of it. We say "its too expensive", you say "its a great value". Let's move past that:

What happens when you want to hear Prince and take his work offline and you find out you can't?

What happens when you are fed a customized Southern Folk Singer-Songwriter Essentials playlist and it has no Neil Young on it?

What happens when Jay-Z launches his new LP on Tidal and forces Apple Music listeners to wait six months to get it?

What happens when Sony Music launches its own streaming service in 2025 and all your Billy Joel songs are pulled from Apple Music and all your personal playlists after being there for a decade?

What happens when the Beatles decide to create their own network in their own app called Beatles Music and charge just for that?

What happens when Apple Music increases their rates to $20 a month?

What happens when you have to curtail your Apple Music experience because its racking up $20+ in data overages?

What happens when all this fragmentation plaguing the streaming market finds its way into the iTunes Music Store and destroys the brilliant one-stop-shop that it is now?

The cost isn't the real issue. It's the renting. It's being held hostage. It's the lack of control.

BJ

You know less about business than music. Almost none of those things are ever going to happen. Spotify and Tidal will barely exist, if at all in five years.

Sony won't start a streaming service for the same reasons they didn't start an iTunes Store competitor and pull all their music because it is a stupid business idea.

Again not getting a good financial perspective on the music industry from a guy who stole the bulk,of his library.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
@boltjames you've conveniently ignored the facts this person posted.....

I no longer respond to that poster as he has nothing to offer but personal attacks.

See post above regarding this argument; FREE streaming is on fire. Paid streaming is a yawn. iTunes Radio is free streaming and it's excellent. Apple Music is iTunes Radio + Unlimited Downloads. Some of us don't need the Unlimited Downloads.

What happens when your house burns down and you lose all your music.

What happens when labels pull music from iTunes that you purchased, so you cannot redownload it.

Alot of your 'what if's' are absurd. If Jay-Z launched his new LP on Tidal, he might restrict it from being purchased anywhere else, which renders that point irrelevant.

You bang on about data overages, that's what offline is for, people can be sensible about their usage if they have caps, you're acting like they're all irresponsible children where daddy doesn't educate and cap their data use for them.... (Which sounds like you're one of, from what you've posted about your irresponsible children). Also, there are unlimited data plans, outside the US we're not as screwed over as you are for unlimited data plans and this is a GLOBAL service (In 100 countries and that will increase).

Additionally, if someone really wants some music that's on other services, if it's purchasable, and someone wants to really have that music, they can buy it and add it to Apple Music.

If someone wants the Beatles, according to your posts,they already have it, as everyone alraedy has their back catalogue, which will be imported to Apple Music.... Same with Prince and Billy Joel. Or are you going to contradict yourself again?

If fragmentation is going to hit streaming, it will hit purchasing too, which messes up your argument too.

My what-ifs are more likely than your what-ifs. A house fire burns my music collection? That's what cloud storage is for, that's what the work computer is for, I have multiple executions of my 25,000 song library. Same for my family photos and family videos. It's not going to perish.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
These are the discussion points that I always sensed behind many of your posts. Whether AM is a good value to 1%, 3%, or even 20% of iTunes users, this discussion certainly highlights the numerous factors one should consider when deciding whether AM makes sense for them rather than simply hearing $9.99 for unlimited streaming and offline access. The answer to those asking you "what's the big deal, if it's not for you, what do you care?" is that if enough people for whom AM does not make sense are suckered in* by the seemingly reasonable rate, the current model that works so well for many of us (i.e., some combination if iTunes purchases and the free versions of iTune Radio, Pandora, Spotify, etc.) won't last and we'll all be stuck with either giving in to AM or scrambling to find alternatives.

The cable comparison is actually a very good one. The difference is that cable was bundled from day one and it is only recently that one could cut the cord and still have a reasonably good chance of accessing their favorite shows. In the context of music, streaming seems to be taking things in the wrong direction. If it stays at a point where most music is available within all of the services, it's probably not such a big deal. However if, as you wonder, each label starts their own streaming services, music will indeed turn into what cable has always been and we'll long for the days of the Pandora/Spotify/iTunes Radio and iTunes purchasing hybrid.

One point that keeps being made is that without AM, you can't listen to specific songs/albums on demand. That might be true of iTunes Radio, but with my free Spotify account, I can listen to anything in their catalog on demand. My understanding is that a premium account would give me a higher bit rate and the ability to save any tracks for offline play, but I have never had any trouble pulling up a song when I felt like listening to it. Does Spotify work differently in the UK?




* I use the phrase "suckered in" not as a slight against many of the posters in this thread and those with similar music listening habits for whom AM might very well make sense, but for the majority of the purchasing public who are not going to think through the true costs to join that have been discussed ad nauseum in this thread.

Just realize free spotify ad tier pays artists much less and it is a money losing proposition for spotify dragging the whole company down.

The only reason the ad tier exists on spotify is to try and convert people to paying subscribers. The days are numbered for spotify's ad tier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Maybe rkymark91
I no longer respond to that poster as he has nothing to offer but personal attacks.

See post above regarding this argument; FREE streaming is on fire. Paid streaming is a yawn. iTunes Radio is free streaming and it's excellent. Apple Music is iTunes Radio + Unlimited Downloads. Some of us don't need the Unlimited Downloads.



My what-ifs are more likely than your what-ifs. A house fire burns my music collection? That's what cloud storage is for, that's what the work computer is for, I have multiple executions of my 25,000 song library. Same for my family photos and family videos. It's not going to perish.

BJ
Geez you must pay millions in data overages uploading and downloading your library to so many places.
 
While I agree entirely with this post by boltjames,

Thank you.

I'd also like to thank the person that wrote about Tame Impala, I got curious and streamed the album twice, therefore Tame Impala's record label earned 0.026$ from me. I will probably stream it a few more times, it's a very good record, so they have a chance to make ten cents from me. As opposed to seven euros = 7.59$ for a sale.

Thank me. I was the person. Tame Impala is awesome. And if you like the new album released Friday, stop everything and sample the one before it called Lonerism. Truly a Top 50 alternative disc if there ever was one.

Labels are screwed by streaming. But they're screwed worse by illegal downloads. If I download the album illegally, they will make $0 from me. Of course it's better to make $0.10 than $0.00. But what Apple and the labels are desperately trying to do is find the sweet spot between "yay I get all this for free" and "wha? I'm not paying that much!".

Agree on all points, but where Music gets killed is that all the good stuff is available for free, randomly, on various forms of terrestrial and internet radio.

We've gone full circle here. For decades long ago it was random radio and a few vinyl records through a loudspeaker. For decades more recently, it's downloads and personal listening of playlists and ones favorites through headphones. Now with iTunes Radio and Pandora it's back to random radio. After 13 years, limiting myself to my downloaded library was getting to be monotonous. The day I discovered Pandora was a huge "wow" moment, loved the fact that I could type in "I Am The Walrus" and create a custom station of endless psychedelic tracks. Mind blown.

Spotify are making a huge loss year to year. I wonder if Apple Music will be able to make a profit. I've re-enabled it after switching off because I was wondering if the For You playlists will get any better, but it seems like AM decided I only like Michael and Janet Jackson and nothing else. Once the trial ends, I'll be going back to Spotify – unless AM comes up with the wow factor that's been mentioned. It's handy that it integrates with iTunes, but the way iCloud works now there's no way I am going to give it a go, which means I can't download anything for offline listening. Scrambling my library is not the wow factor. If I want my metadata messed with I can do it myself. So, yeah, Cue & Co., work harder.

If you take away the redundant Radio from Apple Music which is the same thing as iTunes Radio, you're left with paying $120 a year for rented offline tracks. It's not going to be more than a niche service for a niche audience.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
What about the person that never buys albums? I can't remember that last time I purchased an entire album. I normally find the song I want and download it; doesn't that make Apple Music a lesser value?

Yes, definitely.

If you take away all the things that are bundled into Apple Music that are free elsewhere, you're left with nothing but the deep catalog which by definition is filled with the least popular and least wanted 30 million songs ever recorded. And you have to pay for them. Forever.

Apple Music New = iTunes Radio New Releases Channels

Apple Music For You = iTunes Radio Custom Channels

Apple Music Radio = iTunes Radio

Apple Music Connect = Twitter

Apple Music Deep Catalog (Rental) = iTunes Music Store (Owned)

BJ
 
So you are arguing about the lack of quality music being made these days with people who listen to a much larger variety of music than you do thus have a lot more information and are a lot more informed.

You keep trying to portray yourself as some kind of gatekeeper of quality music when instead you are a get off my lawn with that noise guy who is much less qualified to discuss the merits of various types of music then most of the people posting in this thread.

I have 2 free SiriusXM Radio subscriptions in my cars and they provide as much new music in the genres I frequent as Apple Music or Spotify do. Commercial free, sometimes hosted, sometimes not. If I hear a song I like, I go to iTunes and download it. Easy peasy.

On the weekends, I fire up iTunes Radio on my notebook and connect via wi-fi to Apple TV and sets of wireless speakers throughout the house. Again, if I hear a song I like I click two buttons and I've bought it for a buck.

One does not need to download 12 albums a month to be "in touch with the music scene". In fact, that's limiting. With only 12 songs on a disc and only 3 worthwhile, I can argue very effectively that someone like that is only really being exposed to 36 decent songs in a month whereas I'm being exposed to 360.

Music is made to be listened to; it's not a research project. Put on Pandora, type in a song title, let the day unfold, let your ears enjoy the familiar and the new, no real need to spend money on any of this unless you travel by plane extensively or have a tight dataplan.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
I would argue the ability of yutes to affordably access music via YouTube and very inexpensive streaming services is going to create some very interesting music in the next couple generations. Never have children been able to so affordably and easily access massive libraries of musics of all genres.

This is undoubtedly going to have a profound impact on music being created twenty years from now.

I think all the new sounds and new chords have been discovered and all that's left is sampling, rehash, ripoff, and cute girls with perky breasts.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Your mystery hidden costs for streaming don't jibe with reality and your ideas on fragmentation are absurd. There are only going to be a couple major streaming services in the next five years.

"Your ideas on fragmentation are absurd; Home Box Office will be the only major cable TV movie channel in the next five years."

--Mr. Shortsighted, 1980
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
You are so far away from reality with your perceptions I don't even know what to tell you.

You think everyone has massive libraries of iTunes bought music which is insane. I don't get how you can be so out of touch with how the rest of the world behaves.

Well if I'm wrong, and I may be, then the alternative is even worse:

If people don't purchase music and they don't have huge libraries built since 1996, well, there's your iPhone app Instagram generation and they aren't that into music and using a free service like Pandora, iHeart Radio, and iTunes Radio is sufficient for them, no need to spend a dime.

I'm the guy who was the King Of The Cassette Mixtape in 1982, King Of The Burned MP3 CD in 2000, and King Of The Playlist in 2010. If BJ were taking a long drive with the college girlfriend, he put a ton of thought into the cassette that was playing the whole trip. If BJ was hosting a party, he put a lot of thought into the music that would be playing for the duration of the event. Each track hand-picked, the running order essential, the pacing of fast/slow tracks critical, how each song related to the one before it. You remember.

Well, today I'm the guy that turns on iTunes Radio, picks a station that reflects the mood, and moves on to getting the rib eye's ready. It does a better job than any of us could. iTunes Radio knows what we like, knows what the masses like, knows what secondary and deep tracks have decent playcounts, knows what bands are emerging, it's like having a music butler in your home catering to your every whim. Sounds like I'm not the only one who feels it's enough.

BJ
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Status
Not open for further replies.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.