What Happens When Apple Music Dies On September 30

[boltjames]

Do you have a source for this? I’ve heard rumours, but nothing concrete.

It came from this article yesterday, these guys are usually very credible:

http://www.technobuffalo.com/2015/1...ns-plummeting-as-free-trials-end-report-says/

I don’t think the subscription is the problem. Some people here (on MacRumors) seem to assume that the music streaming market has a problem that needs fixing. But Spotify is actually a highly regarded service in itself, even though most users never subscribe. When you install Spotify on your Mac or your iPhone you will quickly realise why that is.

I agree that the app is difficult to use and has some growing pains. But I think it's deeper than that. Simply put, Apple is trying to get the average iTunes user spending $12 a year to instead spend $120. And the only things of real value are a) the unlimited deep catalog of offline tracks and b) commercial-free iTunes Radio.

So if one is willing to a) pay $1 only for the songs they love and b) live with 15 seconds of commercials every hour on iTunes Radio, there is no need for Apple Music and it's $120 annual commitment for life. Simple as that. It's economics. Spotify and iHeart and now Apple Music have proven that there are around 10M of 800M iTunes users that love music enough to pay that much for it in perpetuity. It's a small market.

BJ

 

[whsbuss]

I was Gonna stay. Nope shuffle works horribly.

Not sure what you mean.

 

[KALLT]

I agree that the app is difficult to use and has some growing pains. But I think it's deeper than that. Simply put, Apple is trying to get the average iTunes user spending $12 a year to instead spend $120. And the only things of real value are a) the unlimited deep catalog of offline tracks and b) commercial-free iTunes Radio.

So if one is willing to a) pay $1 only for the songs they love and b) live with 15 seconds of commercials every hour on iTunes Radio, there is no need for Apple Music and it's $120 annual commitment for life.

Thanks for the link.

But that’s precisely the point. Apple isn’t doing anything positively differently than Spotify. Spotify is like Apple when there was just the iTunes Music Store. It tapped into a new market with a product that worked well and brought advantages that attracted customers. Apple likes to pretend that it knows what people want and how to deliver it and they simply fail to tackle Spotify beyond a superficial level, for the reasons I mentioned. It reminds me of when Microsoft released the Zune. Not everyone likes streaming, true, but there is a market for paid streaming and it’s still growing. It makes sense for Apple to tap into that market to diversify the offer. But Apple is just not a part of it for the reasons I gave.

 

[navaira]

That's the baffling thing for me. Apple generally either come up with a new concept, or refine the existing concept to offer something competition doesn't have. In case of Apple Music it was very much a "me too". The only additions were 1) iTunes integration (which doesn't work for most people) and 2) Beats One which even Zane Lowe doesn't really understand. (Thanks Rogifan!)

 

[KALLT]

That's the baffling thing for me. Apple generally either come up with a new concept, or refine the existing concept to offer something competition doesn't have. In case of Apple Music it was very much a "me too".

Apple Music wasn’t even something naturally Apple either. They purchased Beats along with their streaming service and managers. The Beats 1 team implied at several occasions that they had to build the service (Beats 1 that is) quickly on short notice. It wouldn’t surprise me if that was the generally applicable to Apple Music. It feels like they just threw money at something with minimal effort and consideration and with no personal touch; it feels like a foreign body. I remember a couple of keynotes where Apple showed GarageBand and iMovie and the people that were directly responsible for it (actual Apple engineers). Those were quality apps made by people who knew what they wanted. Apple Music was basically taken over by Iovine under the auspices of Eddy Cue.

 

[whsbuss]

This thread has turned into a hate AM discussion. See ya all later.

 

[boltjames]

That's the baffling thing for me. Apple generally either come up with a new concept, or refine the existing concept to offer something competition doesn't have. In case of Apple Music it was very much a "me too". The only additions were 1) iTunes integration (which doesn't work for most people) and 2) Beats One which even Zane Lowe doesn't really understand. (Thanks Rogifan!)

That's right. And to elaborate:

"For You" = Custom iTunes Radio Stations (free)
"Connect" = Twitter/Facebook/YouTube (free)
"Radio" = iTunes Radio (free + commercials)
"Deep Catalog" = iTunes Music Store ($120 per year vs. $1 per song)

If you listen to Jimmy Iovine's preso at the Keynote, he talked about how music is a "fragmented mess" with "too many services" doing "too many things". What he really should have said is "let us trick you into paying for free content".

Not everything is as easy as a Monster headphone with Dr. Dre branding, Jim.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

This thread has turned into a hate AM discussion. See ya all later.

It's not hate. It's just the new-news about how weak retention is. Apple Music is a good service. I enjoyed the free trial. It's just irrationally priced.

BJ

 

[Dj64Mk7]

I subscribe to Apple Music because I have much more than $120 worth of music that I would like. Apple Music gives me the ability to have the latest releases by my favorite artists right away, instead of having to wait to get money to pay for them. With albums generally costing between $12 and $15 nowadays, Apple Music is a better value for me.

 

[Crazyj414]

Not sure what you mean.

Wow. I need to proofread. Sorry. I was on a work break. What I meant was I was going to stay with it but shuffle is awful.

 

[boltjames]

I subscribe to Apple Music because I have much more than $120 worth of music that I would like. Apple Music gives me the ability to have the latest releases by my favorite artists right away, instead of having to wait to get money to pay for them. With albums generally costing between $12 and $15 nowadays, Apple Music is a better value for me.

Apple Music looks like a good deal for people with very small libraries, looks like you can get at thousands of songs for just $10 a month.

But the issue isn't now; the issue is in the future when you've paid $2,400 over 20 years and if you stop those monthly payments, boom, all your music goes away.

BJ

 

[navaira]

Or – when Apple Music is quietly phased out five years from now and people get a $20 iTunes voucher to sweeten the deal.

I'm not going to @ whsbuss since he left the thread but I'll just say that when I hate something (like my old Scheissung Crapaxy phone, or T-Mobile Netherlands) I am behaving in a much less civilised way. When it comes to AM I just think that it had enormous potential which has almost entirely been wasted.

 

[whsbuss]

Apple Music looks like a good deal for people with very small libraries, looks like you can get at thousands of songs for just $10 a month.

But the issue isn't now; the issue is in the future when you've paid $2,400 over 20 years and if you stop those monthly payments, boom, all your music goes away.

BJ

Agree, but all streaming services are like that - not exclusive to AM

PS: happened to read the thread again..... @ navaria couldn't resist.

 

[yg17]

This thread has turned into a hate AM discussion. See ya all later.

Maybe it's because AM is a buggy piece of **** and deserves all the hate it gets.

 

[boltjames]

Agree, but all streaming services are like that - not exclusive to AM

Yeah, but Apple could have done something more innovative. Like...

1. Charging $3 a month which is a lot more reasonable in the long-term. $36 a year vs. $120 gets them a lot more subscribers.

2. Allow subscribers to permanently keep a percentage of songs they take offline each year. If you're going to charge $120 a year, let people have 60 songs in perpetuity so they wouldn't be deleted the moment someone decided they didn't want the paid service 10 or 20 years from now any more.

3. Create a partnership with ATT, T-Mobile, Verizon for reduced dataplans for Apple Music subscribers. I have 3 kids, I already spend $90 a month so they each can have 3GB of data and they are always on the cusp of going over, no way I'd pay $120 a year for Apple Music plus $360 a year in data overages, it's crazy.

4. Exert their influence to restore order to labels. The iTunes Music Store was genius because all artists and all labels bought into the $1 per song model. Today, artists like Prince, Neil Young, and the Beatles aren't on Apple Music, Jay-Z releases his new music months earlier on Tidal, it's a disaster. No point in unlimited offlines of millions of songs if some of the best music ever made isn't available.

I know some people buy into streaming and are only upset with the app and the UI. That can be corrected. It's the business model that's going to prevent more than 4M of the 800M iTunes users from upgrading to Apple Music, that's what really needs to be discussed.

BJ

 

[whsbuss]

Yeah, but Apple could have done something more innovative. Like...

1. Charging $3 a month which is a lot more reasonable in the long-term. $36 a year vs. $120 gets them a lot more subscribers.

2. Allow subscribers to permanently keep a percentage of songs they take offline each year. If you're going to charge $120 a year, let people have 60 songs in perpetuity so they wouldn't be deleted the moment someone decided they didn't want the paid service 10 or 20 years from now any more.

3. Create a partnership with ATT, T-Mobile, Verizon for reduced dataplans for Apple Music subscribers. I have 3 kids, I already spend $90 a month so they each can have 3GB of data and they are always on the cusp of going over, no way I'd pay $120 a year for Apple Music plus $360 a year in data overages, it's crazy.

4. Exert their influence to restore order to labels. The iTunes Music Store was genius because all artists and all labels bought into the $1 per song model. Today, artists like Prince, Neil Young, and the Beatles aren't on Apple Music, Jay-Z releases his new music months earlier on Tidal, it's a disaster. No point in unlimited offlines of millions of songs if some of the best music ever made isn't available.

I know some people buy into streaming and are only upset with the app and the UI. That can be corrected. It's the business model that's going to prevent more than 4M of the 800M iTunes users from upgrading to Apple Music, that's what really needs to be discussed.

BJ

Last response, I promise:

#1 - $3.00 a month would not be competitive and could have been viewed as anti-competitive. Don't you think all the other streaming services would have screamed bloody murder?

#2 - tell me what service allows someone to keep downloaded music as part of a streaming service? As a consumer that sounds great, but artists don't like it.

#3 - Another consumer feel-good idea, but businesses can't survive like that and could also be anti-competitive (think Google would not want that sweetheart deal for their service?)

#4 - Artists are free to decide where they want their music released to. They want the biggest return and will get it from whom ever will give it to them.

So although your points are valid I'm not sure Apple Music with all their $$$ can satisfy them.

-Bye

 

[Dj64Mk7]

3. Create a partnership with ATT, T-Mobile, Verizon for reduced dataplans for Apple Music subscribers. I have 3 kids, I already spend $90 a month so they each can have 3GB of data and they are always on the cusp of going over, no way I'd pay $120 a year for Apple Music plus $360 a year in data overages, it's crazy.


BJ

T-Mobile has a feature called Music Freedom. When you're on one of their Simple Choice plans, any data you use streaming Apple Music (as well as many other services) does not count against your data limit. See http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/free-music-streaming.html

 

[boltjames]

Last response, I promise:

#1 - $3.00 a month would not be competitive and could have been viewed as anti-competitive. Don't you think all the other streaming services would have screamed bloody murder?

#2 - tell me what service allows someone to keep downloaded music as part of a streaming service? As a consumer that sounds great, but artists don't like it.

#3 - Another consumer feel-good idea, but businesses can't survive like that and could also be anti-competitive (think Google would not want that sweetheart deal for their service?)

#4 - Artists are free to decide where they want their music released to. They want the biggest return and will get it from whom ever will give it to them.

So although your points are valid I'm not sure Apple Music with all their $$$ can satisfy them.

-Bye

Without addressing these issues, Apple Music, Spotify, iHeart Radio, Tidal, and anyone else trying a subscription model will never amount to more than 1% or 2% of the industry.

Charge too much, hold Libraries hostage, let artists sign exclusive deals, it's never going to amount to anything.

BJ

 

[Rigby]

Meanwhile, Spotify appears to be doing very well. They are on track to having around 100 million users by year end (of which about 75 million are ad supported and the rest paying the subscription fee) ...

Besides the bugs in Apple Music, I think one of the problems is that Apple Music is just not perceived as a focused product. It's a weird and difficult to understand amalgam of streaming music, iTunes Match, internet radio and the Connect feature. Sometimes more isn't better.

 

[Primejimbo]

Apple Music looks like a good deal for people with very small libraries, looks like you can get at thousands of songs for just $10 a month.

But the issue isn't now; the issue is in the future when you've paid $2,400 over 20 years and if you stop those monthly payments, boom, all your music goes away.

BJ

I have near 25,000 songs in my library and I use Apple Music. There was so much more I wanted to buy before Apple Music, but waited because I wasn't sure about the albums. Now I am glad I did wait, it saved me some money. There was a few albums I wanted, but didn't want to spend the money because I probably wouldn't have listened to them a lot (albums from my teenage years). With Apple Music, I listened to them for a week or 2, and like I though, got board with them. That saved me $30-34 right there (this will pay 2 more months of Apple Music).

Some other artists recently came out with some albums, I downloaded about $40 worth and been listening to them a lot. You're right, I down own the music and I am fine with it. I don't own the movies on Netflix or the books on Oyster either, but I enjoy their services.

$15 for a family of 3 is a good deal, only $5 each. I know us 3 spend more than $15 a month on music, so this saves us money. I also pay with gift cards I get on sale, and I find them a lot. Just today I got $100 for $84, so that drops the price of Apple Music. My family also buys me iTunes gift cards for birthdays and stuff. When the time comes that we don't use it, I'll just buy the albums I did like a lot, not a big deal.

I get it, it's not for you, and that's fine. Just because you don't enjoy it or think it's worth it, others might.

 

[Primejimbo]

T-Mobile has a feature called Music Freedom. When you're on one of their Simple Choice plans, any data you use streaming Apple Music (as well as many other services) does not count against your data limit. See http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/free-music-streaming.html

I saw this and it's a great deal. I with T-Mobile wasn't so horrible in my area, I would jump on this in a heart beat.

 

[Dj64Mk7]

I saw this and it's a great deal. I with T-Mobile wasn't so horrible in my area, I would jump on this in a heart beat.

If T-Mobile had merged with Sprint I think it would be the best of both worlds, especially with John Legere as CEO. My family has Sprint right now, because of costs and coverage. I've been trying to convince my dad that 2-year contracts are outdated, but he references cost every time. Sprint has good coverage where we are, but T-Mobile is just OK.

 

[boltjames]

I get it, it's not for you, and that's fine. Just because you don't enjoy it or think it's worth it, others might.

I agree completely, for those who want a streaming service and want to pay $120 a year forever to have it that's great.

However, this tangent of the discussion is focusing on the new-news as to why Apple Music only has an insignificant 3M subscribers out of 800M registered iTunes users and that's why the criticisms being voiced about the validity of the paid-streaming services are relevant.

I'd be a subscriber for myself and my kids if a) it were $3 a month and b) we could permanently keep a percentage of the songs we offline each year. I'm not paying 20th Century Fox $120 a year for the rest of my life in the hopes that they release 10 great movies each year. I'll pay as I go, thanks, no need to fund bad media and encourage them to take fewer chances.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

I have near 25,000 songs in my library and I use Apple Music. There was so much more I wanted to buy before Apple Music, but waited because I wasn't sure about the albums. Now I am glad I did wait, it saved me some money.

Like you, I have a 25,000 song Library but it has every great artist, album, and song pre-2015 that myself or my kids would ever need. I am a music aficionado, I am positive there isn't a great band I've never discovered that's sitting out there waiting for me in the deep back catalog. So there's no use for that feature for me.

And if there was a great band from the past or a great new band in the present, I'll pay $1 per song and own them forever. The iTunes Music Store is great for that, has been for decades.

Next, I have zero interest in learning that Chris Martin is in Turks & Caicos this week and that Ariana Grande licked a croissant in a donut shop so Connect means nothing to me. As for my kids, they like that stuff but Twitter does this and it costs nothing.

What's left of what Apple Music has to offer me that is of interest are it's Curated "For You" Playlists. It's cool that Apple knows I like Radiohead and Foo Fighters and curates a list of related tracks for me. But after living with them for three months its very clear that all they are is iTunes Radio Custom Stations without commercials. And I'm not paying Apple $120 a year to have iTunes Radio without commercials.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

There was a few albums I wanted, but didn't want to spend the money because I probably wouldn't have listened to them a lot (albums from my teenage years). With Apple Music, I listened to them for a week or 2, and like I though, got board with them. That saved me $30-34 right there (this will pay 2 more months of Apple Music).

The Apple Music "deep catalog" of all you can eat music is just another attempt at the Columbia Record Club model circa 1978.

You remember. Get 150 songs (13 LP's) for $1 so long as you commit to buy 108 more songs (8 LP's) a year at regular prices. Sounded great. You could build a nice collection immediately for nothing, and look at all those classics, some Hall Of Fame talent and vinyl right there. But after the initial purchase, a funny thing happens, turns out there isn't one great release every month and you're forced by contract to take stuff that you'd never buy otherwise.

The first month of Apple Music feels like Napster circa October 1999 when people would pull overnighters and skip work to keep downloading thousands and thousands of songs to build huge libraries. But a funny thing happened after that first gluttonous week; you had all the stuff you wanted and now you were just looking at the new stuff and that only happens two or three times a year. But now you're stuck paying $120 a year forever or all that stuff you got at a bargain goes away.

BJ