Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Monday August 24 2015, @06:03AM   Printer-friendly
from the is-apple-just-too-late-to-the-party dept.

About one in 10 U.S. owners of an iPhone or other iOS device are currently using Apple Music, the Cupertino, Calif. company's streaming service, according to a survey conducted by MusicWatch.

But nearly half of those who have tried Apple Music -- which offers a free three-month trial -- have stopped using it, said MusicWatch, a research firm based in Huntington, N.Y. that specializes in the music industry.

Apple disputed MusicWatch's numbers. According to a company spokesman Thursday, 79% of the those worldwide who have signed up for Apple Music's trial continue to use the service.

Earlier this week, MusicWatch, citing the results of a survey it conducted this month of 5,000 U.S. consumers, contended that just 11% of all domestic iOS users were now using Apple Music.

"Actually, I was surprised, given all the run-up to Apple Music," said Russ Crupnick, a managing partner at MusicWatch, in an interview. "I thought the [11%] would be higher."

So did Jan Dawson, chief analyst at Jackdaw Research, who last week parsed Apple's Aug. 3 claim that globally it had signed up 11 million customers to Apple Music since the June 30 debut. "Eleven million is only about 2% of [the 500 million iPhone users worldwide], which makes for a tiny conversion rate," Dawson wrote in a piece published on Tech.pinions (subscription required).

Both Crupnick and Dawson were nonplussed by the low number, whether the 11% using Apple Music in the U.S. (Crupnick) or the 11 million Apple touted worldwide (Dawson). After all, the service doesn't cost users a dime until their three-month free ride ends. "It's a free, low-risk endeavor," said Dawson in an interview today. "Yet they have this very, very small number who have bothered to try it out."

Crupnick and Dawson each cast for reasons why fewer iOS owners -- the prime audience, although Apple Music can also be accessed by Mac and Windows users -- than expected had taken to the service. One possibility, both said, is that interest in music streaming had been grossly overestimated.

"This whole concept is relatively new to most people [in the U.S.], and is still getting traction," said Crupnick.

"Is this an indication that the market for streaming is very, very small, that it's not much bigger than Spotify has signed up?" asked Dawson, who pegged Spotify's global paid subscription base at 20 million.

Or is it because of the way that Apple presented the service?


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by jasassin on Monday August 24 2015, @06:17AM

    by jasassin (3566) <jasassin@gmail.com> on Monday August 24 2015, @06:17AM (#226889) Homepage Journal

    I guess I'm not much of a music fan anymore. I actually got a $15 check from the class action against them for overpriced CD's. This was after Metallica sued some 12yo girls family into bankruptcy after she downloaded a handful of their songs. Its one reason why I haven't bought music in a long time. The most important reason is that I haven't heard any good music lately. Oh well.

    --
    jasassin@gmail.com GPG Key ID: 0xE6462C68A9A3DB5A
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Monday August 24 2015, @06:29AM

    by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Monday August 24 2015, @06:29AM (#226893) Journal

    You should just find random playlists on free streaming sites to find new artists.

    Considering the amount of new music that is made all the time and growing populations across the globe, even if you only enjoyed a fraction of the content, that's still a lot of content. And old content you've never listened to.

    Theoretically algorithms could reduce the amount of time needed to find music you would like. That requires giving up data, perhaps with a dummy account, and a good suggestion algorithm. There are companies that are building their entire business model solely around suggesting you music tracks, so maybe it works for someone.

    Recently I've used Google Play Music [google.com].

    --
    [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @06:41AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @06:41AM (#226898)

      > Theoretically algorithms could reduce the amount of time needed to find music you would like.

      Creates the "more of the same" bubble effect. That might be OK for a lot of listeners, they get new music that sounds like old music. Music does seem to be cyclical, lots of 70s inspired stuff is popular now - Pharrell Williams and Robin Thicke just lost $5.3M for copying a Margin Gaye song [wikipedia.org] and these guys [youtube.com] who sound a lot like led zepplin meets r&b have been opening for AC/DC

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @11:35PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @11:35PM (#227287)

      I'm addicted to soma fm [somafm.com]. Plenty of stations, good music (especially the Secret Agent station), and it plays on all my devices (including iPod, thanks to the app, since Apple fucked over internet radio in the new iOS Music). I've ended up discovering through them and buying a lot of artists that I'd never have otherwise found.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @06:31AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @06:31AM (#226894)

    > The most important reason is that I haven't heard any good music lately. Oh well.

    You are just getting old. People get programmed for the kind of music they like during their teens and early 20s. You listen to it constantly and it rewires your brain, you get to your mid-20s and that part of your brain isn't so easily rewired anymore and you are stuck with whatever imprinted on you. Nothing is 100% but that's the general gist of the process.

    • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @07:39AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @07:39AM (#226910)

      Sometimes stuff really is mediocre and some years/periods are worse than others.

      e.g. grammy nominees for Song of the Year: 2012
      *WINNER: "Rolling In The Deep" — Adele Adkins & Paul Epworth, songwriters (Adele)
      "All Of The Lights" — Jeff Bhasker, Malik Jones, Warren Trotter & Kanye West, songwriters (Kanye West, Rihanna, Kid Cudi & Fergie)
      "The Cave" — Ted Dwane, Ben Lovett, Marcus Mumford & Country Winston, songwriters (Mumford & Sons)
      "Grenade" — Brody Brown, Claude Kelly, Philip Lawrence, Ari Levine, Bruno Mars & Andrew Wyatt, songwriters (Bruno Mars)
      "Holocene" — Justin Vernon, songwriter (Bon Iver)

      With competition like that no surprise Adele won.

      2013's list was much better - "We Are Young" vs Stronger, Call Me Maybe, "The A Team". 4 decent songs?

      For year 2002:
      Winner: "Fallin'" (Alicia Keys)
      "Drops Of Jupiter" (Charlie Colin, Rob Hotchkiss, Pat Monahan, Jimmy Stafford & Scott Underwood)
      "I'm Like A Bird" (Nelly Furtado)
      "Stuck In A Moment You Can't Get Out Of" (U2)
      "Video" (India.Arie, Carlos Broady & Shannon Sanders)

      I personally liked "I'm like a Bird", Drops of Jupiter and the U2's song's chorus is ok (but rest of it is meh). And "Video" is worse than meh. So 2.5 decent songs? Fallin is crap ( this is better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oMX1sc3eOTE [youtube.com] ).

      1992:
      Winner: Unforgettable - (WTF 40+ year old song wins...)
      "Baby Baby" (written by Grant and Keith Thomas),
      "(Everything I Do) I Do It for You" (Adams, Robert John (Mutt) Lange and Michael Kamen),
      "Losing My Religion" (Bill Berry, Peter Buck, Mike Mills and Michael Stipe),

      I personally don't know why "Losing My Religion" is even considered a good song**. So I'd say only 2 good songs.
      ** go compare with their other stuff - "Man on the Moon", "Everybody Hurts", "Shiny Happy People".

      In contrast:
      1991 was much better - more competitive nominees - 5 songs which would be decent in their genres.
        Winner: " From a distance" performed by Bette Midler
              Mariah Carey & Ben Margulies for "Vision of Love" performed by Mariah Carey
              Phil Collins for "Another Day in Paradise" performed by Phil Collins
              Prince for "Nothing Compares 2 U" performed by Sinéad O'Connor
              Chynna Phillips, Glen Ballard & Carnie Wilson for "Hold On" performed by Wilson Phillips

      1984:
      Winner: Sting - Every Breath You Take
              Lionel Richie - All Night Long
              Michael Jackson - Beat It
              Michael Jackson - Billie Jean
              Michael Sembello, Dennis Matkosky – Maniac

      1983:
      Winner: Johnny Christopher, Mark James, Wayne Thompson - Always on My Mind
              David Paich - Rosanna
              Donald Fagen - IGY (What a Beautiful World)
              Frankie Sullivan, Jim Peternik - Eye of the Tiger
              Paul McCartney - Ebony And Ivory Lyrics

      All notable and decent within their genres/sub-genres.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grammy_Award_for_Song_of_the_Year [wikipedia.org]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @01:49PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @01:49PM (#227015)

      There is that. But there is also what someone is pointing out. MOST things are crap. I have a fairly decent catalog of 70/80/90s music (well over 40k songs). Of that maybe a few hundred are actually GOOD. Another few hundred are OK. The rest are filler.

      The seismic shift in the industry is the re-rise of the single. Many artists are no longer bothering with whole albums any more and just cranking out singles. To climb the iTunes/Amazon/youtube top 10 lists.

      The thing is many of the artists just are not that good. This has been true since the 50s when this industry really started to get going. Most are bland overproduced goop. Autotuning is rampent and 'the look' is just as important.

      The artists have also been sharing contracts and money stories with each other. They are way more knowledgeable about what they are getting into. The record companies are basically only getting people who are willing to have their work ripped off by the companies. The people who consider themselves 'artists' dont 'sell out' and just try to sell things thru other channels. So the record companies are doubling down on very homogenized toothpaste. It does sell very well. But like you pointed out unless it is kinda novel people get bored with it.

      You also have people like Kati Perry able to make a stink with Apple. Because she has recouped and is still 'big' and able to say 'dont put my music there'. But if she had not said anything would Apple have changed its ways?

      You also have all you can eat music services. One song is much like another. You may be in a particular mood for one or the other. But if the cost to you is 0 to eat at most buffets you are not going to usually spring for much more. Unless it has something really special. Apples service will do 'ok'. But it is in a sea of look alike competitors who all have the same 'service'. They will have to stand out better than that other than 'its on an iphone'. There are a LOT of things on an iphone that are similar.