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

[turbineseaplane]

Hey hey!

Another great morning to be in the "stream and only stream everything" future of amazing!

lol

 

[johngordon]

You seem to think that "physical format" means "downloaded AAC tracks" and that "digital revenues" mean "streaming". LOL.

Um, no. I don't think that. What made you think that?

Read:

Physical format sales
The industry is becoming less reliant on income from physical format sales, with the sector’s share of industry revenues declining from 60 per cent in 2011 to 46 per cent in 2014.Despite the continued transition to digital, physical music sales are still an important revenue source through gifting and deluxe box sets and in some key territories, such as Germany and France, account for more than half of the market.

BJ

Thanks.

I thought the main point was that "The music business continues to expand into new markets and create new business models, attracting more users to digital music services and bringing artists to a wider global audience."

And that the streaming model was an obvious part of that expansion.

 

[boltjames]

What? All of it? Despite your protestations, you do sound a lot like that cliche you are so keen to avoid.

It is utterly ridiculous to make such a sweeping generalisation , and makes it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

I still hear plenty of music that I think is great.

I represent 760,000,000 average iTunes users. You represent a tiny fraction of hardcore enthusiast iTunes users. Yes, one of us is making sweeping generalizations. No, it's not me and those who I represent.

It might be Jedi mind tricks, or it might just be that people have a different taste to you, or maybe even are listening to different music.

I have a gift that is a curse. I can hear a new song, immediately recognize it's construction, and chuckle how it's just a rehash of an old Creedence Clearwater Revival track and it turns me off right away as 'unoriginal'. For someone who cares about music as much as you say you do, you have very low standards by the way.

You're back to the science part - most people don't care that much even if a song isn't completely original, or they already have some other songs with the same BPM. They just care that they think its a great tune. I just heard the new Chvrches track today. I don't suppose its remotely original in terms of genre and sound - but its a cracking good tune.

A great tune is a great tune, no doubt. I also costs $1 for 100 years and not $120 for 1 year.

Are you saying that you "know what's what", but I don't by the way? How rude!

You are a hardcore enthusiast and your perspectives are enlightening and welcomed when you focus on that area of expertise. But when it comes to what the average $12 a year iTunes user does, sorry, you have no skillset or experience to speak on that topic.

BJ

 

[johngordon]

I represent 760,000,000 average iTunes users. You represent a tiny fraction of hardcore enthusiast iTunes users. Yes, one of us is making sweeping generalizations. No, it's not me and those who I represent.

You've lost me. You sound like you're saying that 760,000,000 iTunes users think that all new music is crap.

Which is frankly laughable.

Just because someone doesn't have an interest in something doesn't mean they think its crap.

I have a gift that is a curse. I can hear a new song, immediately recognize it's construction, and chuckle how it's just a rehash of an old Creedence Clearwater Revival track and it turns me off right away as 'unoriginal'.

LOL is an overused term, but I actually did just have a LOL coffee on my screen moment!

You might just be a WUM, and I should claim my £5.

For someone who cares about music as much as you say you do, you have very low standards by the way.

Excuse me?

A great tune is a great tune, no doubt. I also costs $1 for 100 years and not $120 for 1 year.

Well, that rather depends on how many tunes any individual thinks is worth listening to.

You are a hardcore enthusiast and your perspectives are enlightening and welcomed when you focus on that area of expertise. But when it comes to what the average $12 a year iTunes user does

We've been through this - 15-20 albums does not make me a "hardcore enthusiast"!

, sorry, you have no skillset or experience to speak on that topic.

BJ

Excuse me?

Regarding this $12 average, and you representing 760,000,000 iTunes users.

Please tell me you are not under the impression that you think this means that 760,000,000 iTunes users spend $12 each? Because that would be something.

I'm not sure I'm the one not grasping the figures here.

 

[boltjames]

The main issue with a big part of your argument is that you have repeatedly said that everything offered by AM is available for free elsewhere.

But it turned out that wasn't the case at all.

Unless you can download stuff to your library and listen to it when you want, in the order you want, without ads, then now - those components of AM do not = the iTunes radio equivalents.

People can't get everything they can get from AM free from the radio, if it turns out that actually have to buy the music.

Stop already. You again are mixing two distinct features together so it supports your inaccurate and manipulative position:

DISCOVERY OF NEW MUSIC: iTunes Radio and the Radio built in to Apple Music are the SAME. Random songs by Genre or Group tailored to each individual based on their playcounts and purchase history.

DOWNLOAD OF MUSIC: iTunes Music Store and the "Offline" feature built into Apple Music are the SAME. Two clicks, a digital file gets loaded into your device.

PRICING AND OWNERSHIP MODEL: That's the only thing different. One charges $120 a year flat-rate, the other is pay-as-you-go $1 per track.

Last time on this, Johnny. Don't ask me again.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Why are you getting so spiky? They're not loopholes - they are fundamental differences.

Radio - commercials + random tracks
AM - download entire albums to your library and listen to them when you want, uninterrupted

That is a massive difference!

Maybe its just me, but I like the idea of browsing my music library rather than searching for stuff on You Tube overtime I want to listen to something.

I suppose I could add a load of bookmarks, but it would become quite impractical quite quickly. And wouldn't be a great experience when I'm out and about with my phone.

I'm not about to move to the US to use Pandora.

And we don't get iTunes Radio here either - but even then I didn't think you can listen to what you want when you want, in the order you want.

Stop talking about "you". This isn't about "you". We've established that "you" like Apple Music.

What we've been talking about the last few days is what the "average" person is doing regarding music and how Apple Music does or doesn't work for them.

Put yourself into the mindset of a struggling 20 year old college student working a part time job just so he can live off campus, but some petrol for the motor, take his girlfriend out to the cinema, and take what's left to buy generic macaroni and cheese from a price club so he doesn't have to pay for an expensive university meal plan.

That guy isn't spending $120 a year on music. He's got all the music he needs, he's used to getting it from free streaming services, he isn't bothered by a 10 second commercial every hour, and he's fine with what's offered in his car. That guy isn't you. That guy isn't me. But that's the guy we're talking about.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

I thought the main point was that "The music business continues to expand into new markets and create new business models, attracting more users to digital music services and bringing artists to a wider global audience."

And that the streaming model was an obvious part of that expansion.

Definitely, but "streaming" applies to Pandora as much as it does to Spotify. Pandora is free. iTunes Radio is free. iHeart Radio is free. 80% of the amazing "explosion" of streaming services is free to users. And if I really wanted to be accurate on this chart, Spotify offers a free tier, in fact 75% of that 13% is free, only 1/4 of Spotify users actually are paid subscribers.

When you're talking about Apple Music, you are talking about "paid streaming subscriptions" and that's a fraction of the "streaming" market. Don't mix the two together. "Paid Streaming" vs. "Streaming". I know, I know.....it supports your argument better. Just try to avoid the temptation. Let's be gentlemen. Let's be factual.

BJ

 

[Maybe rkymark91]

Stop talking about "you". This isn't about "you". We've established that "you" like Apple Music.

Stop talking about "you". This isn't about "you". We've established that "you" don't like Apple Music.

What we've been talking about the last few days is what the "average" person is doing regarding music and how Apple Music does or doesn't work for them.

Apart from you've been banging on about music enthusiasts and people with over 100,000 tracks they downloaded from limewire. Which is also NOT the average user.

You can't keep your own argument straight....

 

[Artimus12]

...

With AM, if I hear a song in a playlist, I can download the album its from into my library and listen to it whenever I want.

Are you able to do that with iTunes Radio? (being able to buy it doesn't count, because that's no longer iTunes Radio, that's you buying it.)

You're wrong here! no pay = no play ...which is my biggest criticism of streaming services.

You have to continually rent that album if you want to hear it "...whenever I want". It's not like you can stop paying and still listen to it - you can't! You pay your 10 bucks and you can listen to it for 1 month only ...and that's not the same definition of unlimited access that owning a track\album brings.

If my financial situation were to take a turn for the worse in future - and who can say theirs won't, with any certainty? I still have my library to fall back on, Cost Free. Streamers have no such contingency and will end up listening to someone else's preferences.

Streamers also claim to be finding great tracks\albums by streaming, and bellowing from the rooftops about the great value they're getting! but your equations don't take into account that the Artists that created the great music need support too ...more support than they get from streaming royalties.

@navaira played it out for you all, but the majority of posts since have not even taken his\her efforts into account, or considered that the Artists may just forego licensing to Apple on the basis that it's not worth it to them - rightly so. The future looks bleak because you streamers don't want to pay for the great music you listen to and Artists can't earn a living crust.

I really don't want to get into the whole "short-sighted, ungrateful, tight-assed, unoriginal, me too" generation that this format seems to be encourage, but that Artist creativity will demise seems an inevitability.

t'will be a sad end to a once great pastime.

 

[johngordon]

Stop talking about "you". This isn't about "you". We've established that "you" like Apple Music.

What we've been talking about the last few days is what the "average" person is doing regarding music and how Apple Music does or doesn't work for them.

Put yourself into the mindset of a struggling 20 year old college student working a part time job just so he can live off campus, but some petrol for the motor, take his girlfriend out to the cinema, and take what's left to buy generic macaroni and cheese from a price club so he doesn't have to pay for an expensive university meal plan.

That guy isn't spending $120 a year on music. He's got all the music he needs, he's used to getting it from free streaming services, he isn't bothered by a 10 second commercial every hour, and he's fine with what's offered in his car. That guy isn't you. That guy isn't me. But that's the guy we're talking about.

BJ

You were busy telling me all things I could do, so it was difficult to explain how or why I couldn't do them, or didn't want to do them with talking about me.

So no-one over 35 needs AM, because they are so enthusiastic about music they already have everything they want, but not so enthusiastic that they would like anything post 2003.

And its not for people in their 20s.

OK, although I'm not sure what your point here is as I have never disputed that AM isn't for everyone.

 

[johngordon]

You're wrong here! no pay = no play ...which is my biggest criticism of streaming services.

Um I did say "With AM...".

So paying for it is kind of a given.

You have to continually rent that album if you want to hear it "...whenever I want". It's not like you can stop paying and still listen to it - you can't! You pay your 10 bucks and you can listen to it for 1 month only ...and that's not the same definition of unlimited access that owning a track\album brings.

I guess I don't look at it like that, i.e. paying to rent the same music forever. I see it as always having access to all the music I would want to listen to, which is always going to include new stuff.

Because unlike you, I disagree with the suggestion that there has been no good new music since 2003.

If my financial situation were to take a turn for the worse in future - and who can say theirs won't, with any certainty? I still have my library to fall back on, Cost Free. Streamers have no such contingency and will end up listening to someone else's preferences.

Perhaps - but for a lot of people that would be more expensive than streaming.

My position here isn't that one option is better than the other, its just that contrary to the views of some, streaming is a pretty good value proposition for many.

Streamers also claim to be finding great tracks\albums by streaming, and bellowing from the rooftops about the great value they're getting! but your equations don't take into account that the Artists that created the great music need support too ...more support than they get from streaming royalties.

Well, "bellowing from the rooftops" are your words, no-one else.

My own hope would be that streaming reaches some sort of critical mass that makes it a better deal for artists.

@navaira played it out for you all, but the majority of posts since have not even taken his\her efforts into account, or considered that the Artists may just forego licensing to Apple on the basis that it's not worth it to them - rightly so. The future looks bleak because you streamers don't want to pay for the great music you listen to and Artists can't earn a living crust.

I really don't want to get into the whole "short-sighted, ungrateful, tight-assed, unoriginal, me too" generation that this format seems to be encourage, but that Artist creativity will demise seems an inevitability.

t'will be a sad end to a once great pastime.

I'm perfectly happy to pay for great music - but streaming gives me the option to listen to a lot of music I would be interested in hearing, but almost certainly wouldn't buy.

So that's a net win for artists.

If I really like something, I'll probably still buy a few CDs.

 

[johngordon]

Definitely, but "streaming" applies to Pandora as much as it does to Spotify. Pandora is free. iTunes Radio is free. iHeart Radio is free. 80% of the amazing "explosion" of streaming services is free to users. And if I really wanted to be accurate on this chart, Spotify offers a free tier, in fact 75% of that 13% is free, only 1/4 of Spotify users actually are paid subscribers.

When you're talking about Apple Music, you are talking about "paid streaming subscriptions" and that's a fraction of the "streaming" market. Don't mix the two together. "Paid Streaming" vs. "Streaming". I know, I know.....it supports your argument better. Just try to avoid the temptation. Let's be gentlemen. Let's be factual.

BJ

This has already been discussed, and someone else posted that paid streaming has increased by 50% in the last year or so IIRC.

Just another thing for you to skip over.

 

[Maybe rkymark91]

Definitely, but "streaming" applies to Pandora as much as it does to Spotify. Pandora is free. iTunes Radio is free. iHeart Radio is free. 80% of the amazing "explosion" of streaming services is free to users. And if I really wanted to be accurate on this chart, Spotify offers a free tier, in fact 75% of that 13% is free, only 1/4 of Spotify users actually are paid subscribers.

When you're talking about Apple Music, you are talking about "paid streaming subscriptions" and that's a fraction of the "streaming" market. Don't mix the two together. "Paid Streaming" vs. "Streaming". I know, I know.....it supports your argument better. Just try to avoid the temptation. Let's be gentlemen. Let's be factual.

BJ

That post is irrelevant as Pandora is US only. iTunes is in many. Apple Music is in 100 countries. You're cherry picking your sources and changing the goalposts each time.

Also, you're ignoring my posts which have disproven many of your points. Again, you can't complain about people not arguing correctly when you fail to do it yourself.

 

[johngordon]

Stop already. You again are mixing two distinct features together so it supports your inaccurate and manipulative position:

DISCOVERY OF NEW MUSIC: iTunes Radio and the Radio built in to Apple Music are the SAME. Random songs by Genre or Group tailored to each individual based on their playcounts and purchase history.

DOWNLOAD OF MUSIC: iTunes Music Store and the "Offline" feature built into Apple Music are the SAME. Two clicks, a digital file gets loaded into your device.

PRICING AND OWNERSHIP MODEL: That's the only thing different. One charges $120 a year flat-rate, the other is pay-as-you-go $1 per track.

Last time on this, Johnny. Don't ask me again.

BJ

I'm not mixing them together at all.

That's essentially what AM is.

From where I'm standing you are splitting them out suit your "everything Apple Music provides is freely available* elsewhere" argument.

Where freely available* means not actually free at all.

 

[boltjames]

LOL is an overused term, but I actually did just have a LOL coffee on my screen moment!

That's why the 760,000,000 non-paid-streaming iTunes fan have hired me as their representative.

We've been through this - 15-20 albums does not make me a "hardcore enthusiast"!

Respectfully, I think it does. If the average iTunes user is pulling down 12 songs a year and you're pulling down 240, that's a significant variance. Using myself, I'm lucky if I can find 3 albums a year worth owning, and that's in a good year. iTunes Radio really has changed how I consume music. If there were no free iTunes/Pandora radio I'd spend $120 a year for it in a heartbeat. But it does exist. And we cannot ignore it.

Regarding this $12 average, and you representing 760,000,000 iTunes users.

Please tell me you are not under the impression that you think this means that 760,000,000 iTunes users spend $12 each? Because that would be something.

I'm not sure I'm the one not grasping the figures here.

No, but for every one of those 760,000,000 iTunes users that I represent that spends $12 there is another who spends $24 and another who spends $0 and they all need to be accounted for.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Streamers also claim to be finding great tracks\albums by streaming, and bellowing from the rooftops about the great value they're getting! but your equations don't take into account that the Artists that created the great music need support too ...more support than they get from streaming royalties.

Wanted to expand upon this comment as there is a myth that only a streaming service with deep tracks like Apple Music can unearth the "really good songs that weren't that popular that you missed".

I need to point out that in the iTunes Music Store this happens all the time. Case in point, few years back I kept hearing buzz about a band called Weezer that I'd never heard of. I launched iTunes, searched for the band, and right there in front of me are all their songs ranked by popularity. I clicked on the first handful, really liked what I heard, and on the spot clicked the top 20 songs on the list, built a Playlist, next day on the flight to Hong Kong I enjoyed my time playing Candy Crush and listening to the Weezer for 90 minutes.

Thing is, Weezer isn't an extremely popular band, they don't play stadium gigs, they have a small, loyal following. So downloading their top 20 songs I'm getting the stuff that their niche fanbase voted to the top, not just a popularity contest as I don't think they had more than 1 song to break that way on radio, they're not a hit-making pop group by any stretch.

So far, free XM radio, late night TV shows, YouTube, and iTunes band pages are doing a great job of getting me to find new artists. I don't need a paid streaming service. These do just fine.

BJ

 

[Artimus12]

Um I did say "With AM...".

So paying for it is kind of a given.

You conveniently forget to mention that the music you listen to will only be available as long as you continue paying, So your "whenever I want." statement should have concluded with "...as long as I keep paying to listen to it" and it is that part of your debate that is deceitful - it makes all the difference.

I guess I don't look at it like that, i.e. paying to rent the same music forever. I see it as always having access to all the music I would want to listen to, which is always going to include new stuff.

as long as you continue paying your sibs.

Because unlike you, I disagree with the suggestion that there has been no good new music since 2003.

I have neither suggested nor stated that no good music has been released since ANY TIME. Don't try to attribute others' statements to me in order to make my comments seem less valid, it won't work. I love music, new & old, but I can fully understand the argument that the industry is in a state of creative decline.

I posted some figures for an example of that, but it was just another thing to add to the long list of things you have conveniently ignored [snip].

...Eh? did somebody say something? No? okay.

Well, "bellowing from the rooftops" are your words, no-one else.

yes, mine! a statement that reflects your bellowing.

My own hope would be that streaming reaches some sort of critical mass that makes it a better deal for artists.

Do you really believe one artists protest about other artists not getting paid for the AM trial period is going to affect how much they get paid in royalties in the long run? If you do, you're either deluding yourself or you have no idea how businesses get to be the richest company in the world.

seeing as you have spent a lot of this thread arguing that streaming should cost a fraction of what it currently does.

Wrong again, Mr. I'll-put-words-in-peoples'-mouths-whenever-I-can't-defend-my-own-statements! I have stated that I don't think streaming is value for money, not that I think it should cost less.

For The Record: I think Streaming should be banned totally. I think streaming robs the artists and the general public. I think Internet Radio & possibly podcasts should suffice for listening to new artists, and I think if you want to hear a song your heard on free media previously, you should have to buy it, so the artist gets his fair payment.

 

[boltjames]

You were busy telling me all things I could do, so it was difficult to explain how or why I couldn't do them, or didn't want to do them with talking about me.

So no-one over 35 needs AM, because they are so enthusiastic about music they already have everything they want, but not so enthusiastic that they would like anything post 2003.

And its not for people in their 20s.

OK, although I'm not sure what your point here is as I have never disputed that AM isn't for everyone.

Older people have extensive libraries prior to the launch of Apple Music which isn't even a month old.

Younger people don't find Music important enough or rare enough to warrant spending $120 a year for the next 60 years on it.

Both groups now also are influenced by free streaming services whose tiny, short commercials aren't invasive enough to persuade someone to spend real money on the commercial-free alternative.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

This has already been discussed, and someone else posted that paid streaming has increased by 50% in the last year or so IIRC.

Just another thing for you to skip over.

Now now, John, let's not stoop to magic tricks.

Paid streaming can increase 100% in the last year, it doesn't mean that it's fractional userbase is a threat to iTunes Music Store. Math shall set you free:

There are 60 million Spotify users.

45 million don't pay a dime.

15 million subscribe.

There are 800,000,000 iTunes users.

15 million on 800 million is 1.8%

So 1.8% of all owners of iOS devices choose to pay for the world's largest streaming service. BFD. Let's stop the presses right there. This is as unimportant a discussion as what shade of grey Apple put on the the bookmarks menu on mobile Safari. Wait. That's wrong. See, 800 million people use that, not 15.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

I'm not mixing them together at all.

That's essentially what AM is.

From where I'm standing you are splitting them out suit your "everything Apple Music provides is freely available* elsewhere" argument.

Where freely available* means not actually free at all.

"Free" means you don't have to spend any money.

No one is arguing that Apple Music is more convenient. We are arguing that it is too expensive to just offer fans nothing but convenience.

The rest is available for free. That's a fact.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

For The Record: I think Streaming should be banned totally. I think streaming robs the artists and the general public. I think Internet Radio & possibly podcasts should suffice for listening to new artists, and I think if you want to hear a song your heard on free media previously, you should have to buy it, so the artist gets his fair payment.

It'll never happen but you're right.

The only way to make a living off of selling breathable air is when someone takes the free supply away. Paid subscription streaming audio is selling sand on the beach, never going to happen.

BJ

 

[Maybe rkymark91]

No, but for every one of those 760,000,000 iTunes users that I represent that spends $12 there is another who spends $24 and another who spends $0 and they all need to be accounted for.

The $12 figure is US only and the 800 million accounts is worldwide. Also, of those 800m accounts, it doesn't reflect live and unique accounts. You've got people that have multiple accounts for different regions, you have children's accounts, you have dormant accounts. Also, you have people that have accounts for apps, etc, but don't buy music on iTunes and get it elsewhere. You're using twisted, false facts to support your point, which makes your point worthless.

Now now, John, let's not stoop to magic tricks.

Paid streaming can increase 100% in the last year, it doesn't mean that it's fractional userbase is a threat to iTunes Music Store. Math shall set you free:

There are 60 million Spotify users.

45 million don't pay a dime.

15 million subscribe.

There are 800,000,000 iTunes users.

15 million on 800 million is 1.8%

Wrong. There's 70 million Spotify users and over 20 million are paid subscribers. There's a trend of them increasing year on year. That's just Spotify. There's other paid streaming, plus Apple have joined in, you're going to see paid streaming numbers increase significantly. Math will set you free.... Stop ignoring the facts in your face... @boltjames

Or are you going to continue to ignore anyone that provides proof that you're wrong?

Older people have extensive libraries prior to the launch of Apple Music which isn't even a month old.

Source?

 

[Maybe rkymark91]

Both groups now also are influenced by free streaming services whose tiny, short commercials aren't invasive enough to persuade someone to spend real money on the commercial-free alternative.

Apart from the cold hard fact that there's an upwards trend towards paid streaming, or is that another fact you're going to ignore.

 

[tkermit]

Weezer isn't an extremely popular band, they don't play stadium gigs, they have a small, loyal following.

They were popular enough to make it into Windows 95

Please don't let this discussion die, by the way, it's highly entertaining to read.

 

[blasto2236]

Case in point, few years back I kept hearing buzz about a band called Weezer that I'd never heard of. I launched iTunes, searched for the band, and right there in front of me are all their songs ranked by popularity. I clicked on the first handful, really liked what I heard, and on the spot clicked the top 20 songs on the list, built a Playlist, next day on the flight to Hong Kong I enjoyed my time playing Candy Crush and listening to the Weezer for 90 minutes.

Thing is, Weezer isn't an extremely popular band, they don't play stadium gigs, they have a small, loyal following. So downloading their top 20 songs I'm getting the stuff that their niche fanbase voted to the top, not just a popularity contest as I don't think they had more than 1 song to break that way on radio, they're not a hit-making pop group by any stretch.

BJ

And here I thought your taste had only been laughably out of touch since 2003, looks like you missed the 90's as well. Weezer IS an extremely popular band, DOES play stadiums, and has had at least a half dozen huge hits since Buddy Holly. You continue to talk about things with authority that you know nothing about.