SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 24 2015, @01:49PM
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.