Why didn't Apple just purchase Spotify?

[jonnyb098]

Buying spotify would have been horrible since they would have still tried to throw in the whole kitchen sink with music. Remember even the beats app now looks like a star child next to the new Apple Music debacle. Apple wanted the people for the human element and curation. They essentially bought people and a few key features they "tried" to shoehorn into music. And of course Jimmy Iovine............yeahhhh.....

Oh and their horrible, overpriced pieces of garbage they try to pass off as headphones. All marketing because all the tweens......

 

[flur]

And it's not like Spotify's UI is anything to write home about. It has been a mishmash of design choices different on every platform for years. It has gotten incrementally better over years, but partially we've also just gotten used to it. What people like now is how simple it is - but on the other hand, Spotify only needs to do a tiny portion of what Apple Music is attempting. FWIW, I've been a Spotify, Beats, and now Apple Music subscriber since nearly day 1 of each service.

I haven't "gotten used to it" because I only started using it a few weeks ago (after AM FUBARed my library). My husband tells me it used to be a mess, but right now it's pretty good. There are few weird things (like having to back out of wherever you are to get to search), but overall it's consistent and intuitive.

I'm not sure why you think Spotify only needs to do a tiny bit of what AM is doing. AFAI can tell, the only difference in functionality between the two is that with AM you're forced to either upload all your music or create a blank library and pretend you don't own anything, and with Spotify you can choose to upload stuff or not. Beyond that, they both allow streaming at multiple levels of quality, playlists, saving songs/albums, downloading for offline listening, radio, recommendations, etc. What am I missing that AM is doing that Spotify isn't?

 

[thedon1]

Beats might have been more profitable as a company, especially considering the massive margins they make on the headphones. Spotify isn't currently generating a profit.

The staff acquired in the purchase is also a big part of it. getting Jimmy Iovine and Dr Dre, 2 people with a large amount of influence and power within the music industry. From the sounds of it, the labels aren't too fond of Spotify(due to the free tier) and wanted a paid Apple competitor.

It's also worth keeping in mind that Beats1 as a standalone app before the iTunes integration wasn't as buggy as it is now. It's more to do with how Apple tried to bolt it onto iTunes as opposed to beats being a bad service.

 

[flur]

Spotify isn't currently generating a profit.

<snip>
From the sounds of it, the labels aren't too fond of Spotify(due to the free tier) and wanted a paid Apple competitor.

IMO Spotify needs to dump their free tier. It worked great to get their name out there and get them going, but now they need to start making money, and their competitors are for the most part charging. Even if they lose half their users, they'll still double their income by going paid only, and the labels won't have any reason to hold back on contracts.

 

[zhenya]

I'm not sure why you think Spotify only needs to do a tiny bit of what AM is doing. AFAI can tell, the only difference in functionality between the two is that with AM you're forced to either upload all your music or create a blank library and pretend you don't own anything, and with Spotify you can choose to upload stuff or not. Beyond that, they both allow streaming at multiple levels of quality, playlists, saving songs/albums, downloading for offline listening, radio, recommendations, etc. What am I missing that AM is doing that Spotify isn't?

Spotify is basically streaming only. Apple Music needs to handle streaming, purchasing music, integrating users' own personal media files, managing those files across multiple devices, providing iTunes Match functionality to some users but not to others, and playing music via Home Sharing, just to name a few of the major things that iTunes is doing that Spotify isn't.

 

[flur]

Spotify is basically streaming only. Apple Music needs to handle streaming, purchasing music, integrating users' own personal media files, managing those files across multiple devices, providing iTunes Match functionality to some users but not to others, and playing music via Home Sharing, just to name a few of the major things that iTunes is doing that Spotify isn't.

Most of that isn't Apple Music, it's iTunes. Purchases are part of the iTunes Store. Match is a separate service, Home Sharing is iTunes.

Both Spotify and AM track songs/albums/playlists across devices (though Spotify seems to do it with fewer bugs). And both have the option to include personal media files (though Spotify does this in a more simplistic manner, and consequently has fewer bugs).

Right now Spotify does what AM does, only with fewer major issues. The rub is that the issues AM has were primarily introduced via existing bugs ported from Match. If Apple were to decouple AM from iCML they'd get rid of all the major issues and the resulting service would be very similar to Spotify, Tidal, and others.

 

[SDAVE]

Apple needs to rebuild the Music app by iOS 10 and make it more user friendly. There's too much crap going on in it and no one uses @connect. They tried social media stuff before but it never worked.

Also it sucks that you have to download bloated iTunes if you, lets say, want to use it at a workplace. Spotify is a tiny app and i can use it anywhere.

Spotify is successful because it connects with Facebook.

Also Spotify will be more successful with young people (ie students). Their service costs $5.

But of course the family plan for Apple is 6 people for $15 (which is what I have with some people in my family).

 

[zhenya]

Most of that isn't Apple Music, it's iTunes. Purchases are part of the iTunes Store. Match is a separate service, Home Sharing is iTunes.

Both Spotify and AM track songs/albums/playlists across devices (though Spotify seems to do it with fewer bugs). And both have the option to include personal media files (though Spotify does this in a more simplistic manner, and consequently has fewer bugs).

Right now Spotify does what AM does, only with fewer major issues. The rub is that the issues AM has were primarily introduced via existing bugs ported from Match. If Apple were to decouple AM from iCML they'd get rid of all the major issues and the resulting service would be very similar to Spotify, Tidal, and others.

The whole point of Apple Music is that it integrates all of that stuff into a single service, rather than treating it as a separate streaming service. Beats already had a functional and largely bug-free streaming service that did everything you state and that Apple could have merely rebranded, but that's not at all what they wanted to provide.

 

[flur]

The whole point of Apple Music is that it integrates all of that stuff into a single service, rather than treating it as a separate streaming service. Beats already had a functional and largely bug-free streaming service that did everything you state and that Apple could have merely rebranded, but that's not at all what they wanted to provide.

Those things you named still aren't a part of AM, regardless. Song purchases, iTunes Match, and Home Sharing have been and continue to be separate services/options. It's like saying the iphone is part of the mac because they provide an integrated experience.

 

[andyp350]

It would probably have been more work to integrate Spotify with iTunes and Apples own music apps than build a new system from scratch.
The main appeal of Apple Music (for people with Apple devices obviously) over Spotify is that its integrated in with your existing library and purchases. I've been a Spotify premium customer on multiple occasions as I always liked the idea of having access to a streamable library and content that I like to listen to but would probably not purchase, but the fact that it was so seperate to my 'normal' music library always led me to cancel.

 

[zhenya]

Those things you named still aren't a part of AM, regardless. Song purchases, iTunes Match, and Home Sharing have been and continue to be separate services/options. It's like saying the iphone is part of the mac because they provide an integrated experience.

LOL. Try telling someone using AM and those services that they are separate. If I purchase a song from the iTunes store, where does it show up? In the Apple Music library. If I continue to subscribe to Match, there is not some separate application, it's all unified. It sounds like you don't really understand what Apple Music is. You still think it's a separate app. Apple Music is the streaming service that is integrated into iTunes. You can use iTunes without using Apple Music, but you can't use Apple Music without iTunes.

 

[SDAVE]

LOL. Try telling someone using AM and those services that they are separate. If I purchase a song from the iTunes store, where does it show up? In the Apple Music library. If I continue to subscribe to Match, there is not some separate application, it's all unified. It sounds like you don't really understand what Apple Music is. You still think it's a separate app. Apple Music is the streaming service that is integrated into iTunes. You can use iTunes without using Apple Music, but you can't use Apple Music without iTunes.

It just needs to be easier to use. There are too many areas to look for music. Just make it simple, Apple.

 

[flur]

LOL. Try telling someone using AM and those services that they are separate. If I purchase a song from the iTunes store, where does it show up? In the Apple Music library. If I continue to subscribe to Match, there is not some separate application, it's all unified. It sounds like you don't really understand what Apple Music is. You still think it's a separate app. Apple Music is the streaming service that is integrated into iTunes. You can use iTunes without using Apple Music, but you can't use Apple Music without iTunes.

No, your song does not show up in the "Apple Music" library, it shows up in your library, in iTunes and in the music app on your phone. The song was likely already IN the Apple Music library (unless it's by Prince or one of the other artists who have not allowed their music in the service).

Match is a separate service, also not a part of AM. Both Match and AM leverage the iCloud Music Library. When you use Match, songs you upload/sync become part of the iCloud Music Library. AM can see what you've added to iCML and makes those songs available for streaming. This is components working hand-in-hand, not one being swallowed by the other.

It seems you're thinking about it backwards. If you turn off Apple Music, everything you still have access to is NOT part of Apple Music. Your library, the iTunes store, Match, etc., are all still available. So yes, you can use iTunes without using AM, because iTunes is not part of AM.

If you do a search you'll find a very long thread that explains how Match is a separate service that integrates with AM and how it affects what files you'll see in the iCloud Music Library. As you seem to be a Match subscriber, you might want to check that out, as the way all these different components and services come together may directly affect you down the line.

 

[flur]

It just needs to be easier to use. There are too many areas to look for music. Just make it simple, Apple.

This, yes. They need to streamline iTunes (and to a lesser extent, the Music app), and they need to work out all the bugs so that everything is seamless. I'm not holding my breath that it'll be done by the end of the trial period, so I'll be rocking on with Spotify, but if/when they get it all right, I'll be happy to come back. It's easy to see the potential in it.

 

[whsbuss]

Just yesterday I used Apple Music offline for my car trip. It is so great to plug in my iPhone and have full iPod control right from the vehicle screen. Can't do that with Spotify.

 

[MentalFloss]

Those things you named still aren't a part of AM, regardless. Song purchases, iTunes Match, and Home Sharing have been and continue to be separate services/options.

What does it matter if they have a different name? They are still tightly integrated with Apple Music. If I buy a song, it's virtually indistinguishable from a song that I added to my library via Apple Music. I can place purchased songs and streamed songs together into one playlist. I can stream songs that I ripped from CD via Apple Music. All from one single app. The only thing that is still separate on iOS is the purchasing of music. Beyond that it is a naming issue "This is called Apple Music, this isn't" which has no impact on my user experience. When I play a song, it doesn't sound different whether it comes from Apple Music or not and the Play button in the Music app doesn't change color or anything else that would indicate to a normal user that they have left the Apple Music service and are now playing songs from iTunes. In a couple of years, everyone will call all music coming out of their Apple devices "Apple Music". Heck, Apple will probably do that.

The separation that you talk about is something completely artificial that only exists if you keep reminding yourself about the separate services. Yes, of course, if I cancel AM, the AM songs are gone from the library. That does not change the fact that as long as I am an AM subscriber, they are practically indistinguishable from the other songs in my library. That's all that counts.

 

[zhenya]

It seems you're thinking about it backwards. If you turn off Apple Music, everything you still have access to is NOT part of Apple Music. Your library, the iTunes store, Match, etc., are all still available. So yes, you can use iTunes without using AM, because iTunes is not part of AM.

You misread what I wrote, because that is exactly what I said.

You can use iTunes without using Apple Music, but you can't use Apple Music without iTunes.

If you want to use Apple Music, it is inextricably linked to iTunes and must, by design, integrate with all of those other services it offers.

 

[flur]

What does it matter if they have a different name? They are still tightly integrated with Apple Music. If I buy a song, it's virtually indistinguishable from a song that I added to my library via Apple Music. I can place purchased songs and streamed songs together into one playlist. I can stream songs that I ripped from CD via Apple Music. All from one single app. The only thing that is still separate on iOS is the purchasing of music. Beyond that it is a naming issue "This is called Apple Music, this isn't" which has no impact on my user experience. When I play a song, it doesn't sound different whether it comes from Apple Music or not and the Play button in the Music app doesn't change color or anything else that would indicate to a normal user that they have left the Apple Music service and are now playing songs from iTunes. In a couple of years, everyone will call all music coming out of their Apple devices "Apple Music". Heck, Apple will probably do that.

The separation that you talk about is something completely artificial that only exists if you keep reminding yourself about the separate services. Yes, of course, if I cancel AM, the AM songs are gone from the library. That does not change the fact that as long as I am an AM subscriber, they are practically indistinguishable from the other songs in my library. That's all that counts.

It matters for a number of reasons, including the one you gave. You should know what is and isn't part of the service you so that you can decide if you want to pay for it. You should know what will and will not work if you turn it off. You should know what it means if Apple decides down the line to spin off the service. From a back-end perspective, knowing what the components are and how they interact will help you in troubleshooting issues, and it will help if you need to talk to support.

Yes, you can look at them as the same and use them as the same. But back to the original discussion, the reason Apple didn't buy Spotify isn't because AM does so much more. It doesn't. If Apple HAD bought Spotify instead of Beats, they would have still wanted to integrate it in the same way.

 

[manu chao]

I would think this would be a better solution for them. They could have easily purchased it. Maybe they've tried to no avail?

I don't think FCC would butt in for this since there were also other competitors on the market.

Spotify is feature rich and has at least 5 years of a headstart. Their desktop and web player are top notch and light weight. Sure maybe the "curation" service isn't as good as Apple's algorithm, but for very picky users such as myself, the "What friends are playing" is a great way to discover music through friends who have similar taste in music.

Because they bought Beats. 99% of the complaints here do not apply to the previous Beats streaming service but to its integration with iTunes and the Music app on the iPhone. Buying a different wouldn't have made that integration any easier.

 

[navaira]

What I would like to know: did Beats have the "download for offline listening" mode? Did it require some sort of cloud integration? Because that's the part of AM that seems to be the biggest problem, so I'd like to know if it got changed.

 

[zhenya]

Yes, Beats had an offline mode that worked fine.

I'm sure it got changed though, because the offline feature is now integrated into iTunes/music app.

 

[whsbuss]

What I would like to know: did Beats have the "download for offline listening" mode? Did it require some sort of cloud integration? Because that's the part of AM that seems to be the biggest problem, so I'd like to know if it got changed.

What problems are you having? I've had none here.

 

[navaira]

I personally have no problems whatsoever, because Apple Music told me "Genius playlists cannot be updated". (I don't use Genius.) By which, as frantic googling explained, AM meant my library is over 25k songs.

As for problems others are having, I refer you to the Jim Dalrymple thread. A friend of mine who is an avid collector and amassed a lot of live recordings, bootlegs, demoes and rare remixes, saw all of them replaced by album versions, with random artwork. After which I thanked the Apple Gods for not allowing me to put my library in the cloud. Alas, I can't download anything for offline listening without using iCloud. So my one problem with offline listening is that it doesn't work at all, except for songs that are already in my library.

 

[manu chao]

I haven't "gotten used to it" because I only started using it a few weeks ago (after AM FUBARed my library). My husband tells me it used to be a mess, but right now it's pretty good. There are few weird things (like having to back out of wherever you are to get to search), but overall it's consistent and intuitive.

I'm not sure why you think Spotify only needs to do a tiny bit of what AM is doing. AFAI can tell, the only difference in functionality between the two is that with AM you're forced to either upload all your music or create a blank library and pretend you don't own anything, and with Spotify you can choose to upload stuff or not. Beyond that, they both allow streaming at multiple levels of quality, playlists, saving songs/albums, downloading for offline listening, radio, recommendations, etc. What am I missing that AM is doing that Spotify isn't?

Can Spotify be used to manage a local library of ripped (or otherwise obtained music files)?

 

[navaira]

It can to a degree -- it accepts iTunes library as "offline music" and you can import playlists -- but I never tried using it as my main app. However now that you asked... I am going to give it a try.