Next Apple's .....

artical from, C|net.com

Good luck with this...

The music industry would be foolhardy to accept this plan. An article in the WSJ reported the music companies balked at Apple's low-ball figure of $4.00 / $6.00 month for streaming, and welcomed Jay-Z Tidal's price point and pay only music streaming service. As this articleabobe points out, Internet Radio and Pandora -statutory license- wouldn't be impacted. I suspect some of the several million non-paying Spotify customers would sign-up, but many would move to "free" sites.

The uptick to this is, possibly some people would give or move to streaming sites for independent band / singers. We shall see...

People want free music just like the radio. People were so mad when Youtube made people start to watch advertisements before their vids, but nothing's free.

Problem is that STREAMING as I have said before, ONE does not lead to sales at all, there is no study that has been done to prove this, HOWEVER, the opposite has been proven that MANY close to 90% of streamed albums in full on itunes, amazon etc...pre street date and upon release are ALWAYS found on download sites instantly, the software to do this is already made and free, so why are people going to pay, WE have to accept the fact the way we consumed music by buying it or hearing a song on the radio is fucking dead, now you have your following and try to get them to buy new stuff, for others it really sucks because this generation feel that MUSIC is not to be paid for, sorry that is the general word out there, WHY should i pay?

Even Live streaming of Video is bad, live concerts on YAHOO are available in full on Youtube HOURS after.

So people can say, OH it was like that back in the day with RADIO and people making tapes, get fucking real please, it takes about 5 minutes now to download/steal music, to make a tape took fucking hours, and who had the time or patience to sit there and cut and press pause get the next song, are people serious when then make the comparison like this??? And taking songs off the radio, ARE U FUCKING kidding me??? how many had tracks with the DJ talking, or you had to press your tape recorder against the speakers and press record and you always moved and heard that, or mom would walk in the room and talk and you'd have all that recorded....SO PLEASE with that comparison, people want free shit, plain and simple. The artist is viewed as someone RICH and why should I give you money.

lastdecember said:

So people can say, OH it was like that back in the day with RADIO and people making tapes, get fucking real please, it takes about 5 minutes now to download/steal music, to make a tape took fucking hours, and who had the time or patience to sit there and cut and press pause get the next song, are people serious when then make the comparison like this??? And taking songs off the radio, ARE U FUCKING kidding me??? how many had tracks with the DJ talking, or you had to press your tape recorder against the speakers and press record and you always moved and heard that, or mom would walk in the room and talk and you'd have all that recorded....SO PLEASE with that comparison

Cinny said:

lastdecember said:

So people can say, OH it was like that back in the day with RADIO and people making tapes, get fucking real please, it takes about 5 minutes now to download/steal music, to make a tape took fucking hours, and who had the time or patience to sit there and cut and press pause get the next song, are people serious when then make the comparison like this??? And taking songs off the radio, ARE U FUCKING kidding me??? how many had tracks with the DJ talking, or you had to press your tape recorder against the speakers and press record and you always moved and heard that, or mom would walk in the room and talk and you'd have all that recorded....SO PLEASE with that comparison

I don't know about anyone else but, when I was a kid we figured out rather quickly after 10pm... most DJ's didn't talk over music and they use to played entire albums. But I've degressed....

If I can find the Wall Street Journal article again, I'll post the link. What I took from the article (posted link), once again the record industry is waiting on someone to save them from themselves and/or dethrone Apple Inc. Remember when Googl Music Store was suppose to be Apple's comeuppance? Remember when the industry allowed Amazon to sale digital singles / albums cheaper than iTunes?

Apple wants to get rid of free music streaming sites in order to play catch-up to Spotify. Apple doesn't give a fuck about the artist or the industry, its their bottom line they wish to protect. The question is, what is the record industry doing besides scratch their heads and digg in their asses? What did they do when Internet radi o/ music sites popped up? The music companies again pulled the two-tier pricing... cheaper for radio ( public airways the record industry controlled via payola) higher rates for Internet radio. How is that working?

I thought everyone understood or knew Streaming would never be the catalyst to get folks to buy, vinyl, CD's, single and/or albums. Streaming was a concept or a reaction to uploading music / downloading / Peer2 Peer sharing of music for free. Nobody ever made millions just by having their music played on the radio... they needed the public to then go out and purchase what the heard.

My point, is it possible get rid of all free music streamig sites from the net? Pushing people to pay for streaming or have no music to stream... will this make more people pay for a sub?

Right now I've listening to a station Tunein Radio on an iPod, a "radio station" out of Germany. I haven't heard a commercial yet....

Cinny said:

People want free music just like the radio. People were so mad when Youtube made people start to watch advertisements before their vids, but nothing's free.

.

Personally, I'd happily pay $10/month to have Youtube ad-free.

Doubts arise that Apple's expected Beats Music relaunch will take place next month.

A June launch of Apple's new subscription service is going down to the wire. Industry sources say Apple does not have the necessary licensing deals a month before the Apple Worldwide Developers Conference that will take place in San Francisco from June 8th to 12th.

There is widespread belief in technology and music circles Apple plans to introduce the service at the June conference. (At last year's conference the company introduced Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre as newly named employees.) Along with the company's spring and fall press events, the Developers Conference is one of three opportunities per year to launch a new product in front of a worldwide audience. Since acquiring Beats Electronics last May, the only music announcement was Apple's release of U2's Songs of Innocence at the fall press event.

A June launch is still attainable. One source notes Apple has been able to quickly secure licensing deals in the past. "If any company can pull it off, they can," the source tells Billboard, adding that "labels are more likely to play ball with them" because of Apple's track record of generating revenue for rights holders.

Another major label source believes the Beats Music re-launch isn't coming soon. "June won't be the release date. The deals aren't done."

Apple is overhauling and probably rebranding the Beats Music subscription service it acquired in its $3 billion acquisition of Beats Electronics. It is expected to carry the standard $9.99-per-month price tag and the same emphasis on human curation preferred by Beats co-founders Jimmy Iovine and Dr. Dre. Beats Music has been available only in the United States since its January 2014 launch. With the global presence of the iTunes Music Store and Apple phones and tablets, Apple will have the ability to significantly expand the subscription service's footprint.

Apple refused a request for comment

.

http://www.billboard.com/...-streaming

CandaceS said:

Cinny said:

People want free music just like the radio. People were so mad when Youtube made people start to watch advertisements before their vids, but nothing's free.

.

Personally, I'd happily pay $10/month to have Youtube ad-free.

Hard to sell for the people who remember it being free AND ad-free.

lastdecember said:

Problem is that STREAMING as I have said before, ONE does not lead to sales at all, there is no study that has been done to prove this, HOWEVER, the opposite has been proven that MANY close to 90% of streamed albums in full on itunes, amazon etc...pre street date and upon release are ALWAYS found on download sites instantly, the software to do this is already made and free, so why are people going to pay, WE have to accept the fact the way we consumed music by buying it or hearing a song on the radio is fucking dead, now you have your following and try to get them to buy new stuff, for others it really sucks because this generation feel that MUSIC is not to be paid for, sorry that is the general word out there, WHY should i pay?

Even Live streaming of Video is bad, live concerts on YAHOO are available in full on Youtube HOURS after.

So people can say, OH it was like that back in the day with RADIO and people making tapes, get fucking real please, it takes about 5 minutes now to download/steal music, to make a tape took fucking hours, and who had the time or patience to sit there and cut and press pause get the next song, are people serious when then make the comparison like this??? And taking songs off the radio, ARE U FUCKING kidding me??? how many had tracks with the DJ talking, or you had to press your tape recorder against the speakers and press record and you always moved and heard that, or mom would walk in the room and talk and you'd have all that recorded....SO PLEASE with that comparison, people want free shit, plain and simple. The artist is viewed as someone RICH and why should I give you money.

Call me old fashioned or naive but I still buy physical CDs and even vinyl, and most of the time I enjoyed an album or singles as a stream I went and bought the physical format after streaming it first.

While I do agree with most of what you wrote, all I´m saying is that if the music is really good, people will go and buy it. Real fans will do that to support the artist.

Back in the days, when we were teenagers and could not afford to buy every 12" or album, we shared the music that we DID buy, so most of us had the latest music but still supported the artists.

I think the lack of quality is the main problem these days. If I like an album, I will definitely buy it. But I must admit I don´t buy as many albums like I used to. The last albums I bought were Prince´s AOA, Plectrum Electrum, D´Angelo´s Black Messiah and Kendrick´s last two albums. And I don´t even like Plectrum Electrum but as a fan and completist, I just got to have it. But the D´Angelo and Kendrick albums I first listened to for free, for about a week or two.

And they are very enjoyable albums. I can´t say that about most other new releases though.

Apple truely have become the IBM of new generation.

TD3 said:

I don't know about anyone else but, when I was a kid we figured out rather quickly after 10pm... most DJ's didn't talk over music and they use to played entire albums. But I've degressed....

If I can find the Wall Street Journal article again, I'll post the link. What I took from the article (posted link), once again the record industry is waiting on someone to save them from themselves and/or dethrone Apple Inc. Remember when Googl Music Store was suppose to be Apple's comeuppance? Remember when the industry allowed Amazon to sale digital singles / albums cheaper than iTunes?

Apple wants to get rid of free music streaming sites in order to play catch-up to Spotify. Apple doesn't give a fuck about the artist or the industry, its their bottom line they wish to protect. The question is, what is the record industry doing besides scratch their heads and digg in their asses? What did they do when Internet radi o/ music sites popped up? The music companies again pulled the two-tier pricing... cheaper for radio ( public airways the record industry controlled via payola) higher rates for Internet radio. How is that working?

I thought everyone understood or knew Streaming would never be the catalyst to get folks to buy, vinyl, CD's, single and/or albums. Streaming was a concept or a reaction to uploading music / downloading / Peer2 Peer sharing of music for free. Nobody ever made millions just by having their music played on the radio... they needed the public to then go out and purchase what the heard.

My point, is it possible get rid of all free music streamig sites from the net? Pushing people to pay for streaming or have no music to stream... will this make more people pay for a sub?

Right now I've listening to a station Tunein Radio on an iPod, a "radio station" out of Germany. I haven't heard a commercial yet....

But the comparison of making "tapes" to downloading music, its just not even in the same ballpark and what people tend to use as a "way" to prop up the streaming services. The problem now is technology is what it is, consumers by in large i would say 90% dont really care about artwork or pakages, who played on a record, the liner notes etc....so that consumer you are not going to get to buy anything for the most part, so streaming is leading to more music going out and with technology the way it is, its so simple to get streams downloaded and there you have a free album, so if its not benefitting the artist at all, labels and things like Apple of course want them gone. If I was an artist i wouldnt want my ablum streamed unless there was some sort of security codes and shit like that on it, cause your basically saying here is my record for free, now for some it doesnt effect them, those with loyal fan bases will always have much higher % of people that still buy their records even if they dont sell like they did.

The problem here is technology. You could replace "streaming" with "sheet music" or "records" or "radio" and you'd be having pretty much the same conversation that's been had throughout history. Streaming is the future, and while it's not perfect, it's the way a lot of people experience music these days.

I still buy vinyl, but from a consumer perspective, Spotify is amazing.

guitarslinger44 said:

The problem here is technology. You could replace "streaming" with "sheet music" or "records" or "radio" and you'd be having pretty much the same conversation that's been had throughout history. Streaming is the future, and while it's not perfect, it's the way a lot of people experience music these days.

I still buy vinyl, but from a consumer perspective, Spotify is amazing.

Agreed. I understand people being iffy about streaming because it's more like renting than owning the music but I think Spotify is great and convenient! I use it at home through my desktop speakers and I can go out and plug in my phone into my car and listen to it there and when I'm out running I can listen to it on my headphones.

I still buy CD and vinyls of the artists who I love and want to support. Spotify allows me to discover new artists quite easily too and in turn I support their tours if they come through my city. Streaming is the future with music as well as with TV, movies and even (audio) books. People might as well get used to it. The entertainment industry is going to have to be forced to change with it.

Also I know artists don't like Spotify and other streaming services because of their low payout. But shouldn't their beef be with their record labels? Spotify said they barely make a profit because almost all of their ad revenue and subscription money goes to the record labels. I don't feel like Spotify is the enemy.

[Edited 5/7/15 10:02am]

starbelly said:

Also I know artists don't like Spotify and other streaming services because of their low payout. But shouldn't their beef be with their record labels? Spotify said they barely make a profit because almost all of their ad revenue and subscription money goes to the record labels. I don't feel like Spotify is the enemy.

[Edited 5/7/15 10:02am]

.

Even independent artists who aren't signed to any label are disappointed in the Spotify royalty payouts.

.

Here's an example of an extremely successful independent artist - Zoe Keating.

In 9 months on Spotify, she had 444,202 streams and was paid $1916

.

What a Successful Indie A...on Spotify

.

She would only have to sell around 275 albums worldwide in the same period to make the same money that Spotify paid her for all those streams.

.

What artists are saying is that Spotify's entire monetary system is not good enough (also the free tier should be removed) and the real winners are Spotify's owners.

.

The money comes streaming...ick Jagger

[Edited 5/7/15 11:27am]

guitarslinger44 said:

The problem here is technology. You could replace "streaming" with "sheet music" or "records" or "radio" and you'd be having pretty much the same conversation that's been had throughout history. Streaming is the future, and while it's not perfect, it's the way a lot of people experience music these days.

I still buy vinyl, but from a consumer perspective, Spotify is amazing.

But there is no comparison though between "streaming" and "radio" in the days when radio was the force. Technology has allowed the music to be consumed for nothing, i think that is more of the issue, APPLE fighting SPOTIFY or some other outlet over someone elses "income" is insane. A streamed is easily downloaded on the net, when an album hits amazon or itunes or whatever and streams a week or two early it is instantly is on a site for free, that was not the case with radio or mixtapes back in the day, so if streaming is the new record fine but there is no equal comparison. There still has been NO proof or study that has proven, streaming leads to sales, i mean Billboard counts it as a sale, but that is not important to an artist that isnt Katy Perry or Beyonce or Taylor Swift who could sell zero albums and be zillionaires.

This is why things like PLEDGEMUSIC are gonna take over, the artists mainly are tired of labels, tired of downloads and want to get the consumer up front.

nd33 said:

starbelly said:

Also I know artists don't like Spotify and other streaming services because of their low payout. But shouldn't their beef be with their record labels? Spotify said they barely make a profit because almost all of their ad revenue and subscription money goes to the record labels. I don't feel like Spotify is the enemy.

[Edited 5/7/15 10:02am]

.

Even independent artists who aren't signed to any label are disappointed in the Spotify royalty payouts.

.

Here's an example of an extremely successful independent artist - Zoe Keating.

In 9 months on Spotify, she had 444,202 streams and was paid $1916

.

What a Successful Indie A...on Spotify

.

She would only have to sell around 275 albums worldwide in the same period to make the same money that Spotify paid her for all those streams.

.

What artists are saying is that Spotify's entire monetary system is not good enough (also the free tier should be removed) and the real winners are Spotify's owners.

.

The money comes streaming...ick Jagger

[Edited 5/7/15 11:27am]

Aw yeah that's no good!