|
|
Post by davidl81 on Aug 21, 2018 9:35:37 GMT -5
One recurring point being made is that streaming is somehow lower quality than cds.... Tidal offers cd resolution as well as MQA, and Qobuz, soon to be in the US is at CD resolution.... IMO I think most people regarding streaming as Spotify and Apple iTunes, but you are correct Tidal HD is a great streaming source, just not nearly as popular in the main stream as Spotify. |
|
|
|
Post by audiobill on Aug 21, 2018 9:47:05 GMT -5
Keith, we all well know your personal preferences by now, which are not shared by all nor are they the only lens with which to look at this.
I just wanted to dispel the apparent notion that streaming may be limited to MP3, etc.
Thanks,
|
|
|
|
Post by craigl59 on Aug 21, 2018 10:46:18 GMT -5
Spotify has gone public and a lot of big-money investors have made it their bet to become the "Google music" of the future. Yet it has never made a profit.
Tidal is on the brink of bankruptcy and hasn't paid a number of licensed performers for months. So any higher-quality feeds it pays for are just another nail in its coffin.
SO, this is the third time I have stressed this on the Lounge: The funding for streaming services is not based on real world costs and their major technique continues to be: low-ball subscriptions in order to get a customer base. Once the realities of costs are dealt with, the subscription prices are going up -- dramatically so.
The costs of actually producing a world-class recording are very, very high. Many just focus on the studio recording costs -- that can be in the 6 figures. But the musicians involved have got to buy, then learn their instruments. Then they have to rehearse and write the material -- paying for time and space. Then producers tack on marketing, promotion, and other costs. AND, most recordings remain unsuccessful by "hit" standards.
So paying a fraction of a cent per play on a subscription service is not going to add up to enough revenue to recoup costs -- not even close and not even if the track has many millions of hits. Posted a NYT article on the Lounge that shows musicians are giving up everywhere because they can't make enough to live. The "suits" are saying this on the Grammy shows. Once you generate an environment in which economic failure is assured, then the best talents will not enter the field. I was a music professor for many years and know -- the best minds are not going into music these days.
SO the average listener can believe they do not care about costs and just want their music fix but the upcoming (or perhaps current) reality is that once better minds/talents do not enter the field, your music fix is going to be less and less interesting.
CD sales used to provide a revenue base that helped support performers, producers, and audio manufacturers. Now that this revenue is largely gone, streaming services ARE NOT making up the difference.
Anyone hear that the New York audio show is being canceled because of not enough exhibitors? Or that the LA show was canceled last month? Audio store retailers are a thing of the past in most towns. There are, realistically, no more classical orchestral recordings being made in the USA (and relatively few in Europe).
Keith raises an essential point above: once your entire collection is online, then you are at the mercy of that provider. If they go out of business, you're screwed. If you move, you're screwed. If they decide to change the rules, you're screwed.
SO, just like the others on this thread, I continue buying CDs and rip them into JRiver. It is not in my best interests to support streaming services that do not provide an economic environment in which musicians can succeed. Why should you?
|
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Aug 21, 2018 11:07:12 GMT -5
Spotify has gone public and a lot of big-money investors have made it their bet to become the "Google music" of the future. Yet it has never made a profit. Tidal is on the brink of bankruptcy and hasn't paid a number of licensed performers for months. So any higher-quality feeds it pays for are just another nail in its coffin. SO, this is the third time I have stressed this on the Lounge: The funding for streaming services is not based on real world costs and their major technique continues to be: low-ball subscriptions in order to get a customer base. Once the realities of costs are dealt with, the subscription prices are going up -- dramatically so. The costs of actually producing a world-class recording are very, very high. Many just focus on the studio recording costs -- that can be in the 6 figures. But the musicians involved have got to buy, then learn their instruments. Then they have to rehearse and write the material -- paying for time and space. Then producers tack on marketing, promotion, and other costs. AND, most recordings remain unsuccessful by "hit" standards. So paying a fraction of a cent per play on a subscription service is not going to add up to enough revenue to recoup costs -- not even close and not even if the track has many millions of hits. Posted a NYT article on the Lounge that shows musicians are giving up everywhere because they can't make enough to live. The "suits" are saying this on the Grammy shows. Once you generate an environment in which economic failure is assured, then the best talents will not enter the field. I was a music professor for many years and know -- the best minds are not going into music these days. SO the average listener can believe they do not care about costs and just want their music fix but the upcoming (or perhaps current) reality is that once better minds/talents do not enter the field, your music fix is going to be less and less interesting. CD sales used to provide a revenue base that helped support performers, producers, and audio manufacturers. Now that this revenue is largely gone, streaming services ARE NOT making up the difference. Anyone hear that the New York audio show is being canceled because of not enough exhibitors? Or that the LA show was canceled last month? Audio store retailers are a thing of the past in most towns. There are, realistically, no more classical orchestral recordings being made in the USA (and relatively few in Europe). Keith raises an essential point above: once your entire collection is online, then you are at the mercy of that provider. If they go out of business, you're screwed. If you move, you're screwed. If they decide to change the rules, you're screwed. SO, just like the others on this thread, I continue buying CDs and rip them into JRiver. It is not in my best interests to support streaming services that do not provide an economic environment in which musicians can succeed. Why should you? Although it is true that overall revenue went down dramatically once digital/streaming started, over the last few year revenues have risen back up. By 2020 revenues are projected to be right back to where they were in the late 90's. Although not great, it is not the end of music as we know it. And sure some of the streamers will go away (Tidal most likely), but Spotify will likely be around.  |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Aug 21, 2018 11:19:34 GMT -5
Spotify has gone public and a lot of big-money investors have made it their bet to become the "Google music" of the future. Yet it has never made a profit. Tidal is on the brink of bankruptcy and hasn't paid a number of licensed performers for months. So any higher-quality feeds it pays for are just another nail in its coffin. SO, this is the third time I have stressed this on the Lounge: The funding for streaming services is not based on real world costs and their major technique continues to be: low-ball subscriptions in order to get a customer base. Once the realities of costs are dealt with, the subscription prices are going up -- dramatically so. The costs of actually producing a world-class recording are very, very high. Many just focus on the studio recording costs -- that can be in the 6 figures. But the musicians involved have got to buy, then learn their instruments. Then they have to rehearse and write the material -- paying for time and space. Then producers tack on marketing, promotion, and other costs. AND, most recordings remain unsuccessful by "hit" standards. So paying a fraction of a cent per play on a subscription service is not going to add up to enough revenue to recoup costs -- not even close and not even if the track has many millions of hits. Posted a NYT article on the Lounge that shows musicians are giving up everywhere because they can't make enough to live. The "suits" are saying this on the Grammy shows. Once you generate an environment in which economic failure is assured, then the best talents will not enter the field. I was a music professor for many years and know -- the best minds are not going into music these days. SO the average listener can believe they do not care about costs and just want their music fix but the upcoming (or perhaps current) reality is that once better minds/talents do not enter the field, your music fix is going to be less and less interesting. CD sales used to provide a revenue base that helped support performers, producers, and audio manufacturers. Now that this revenue is largely gone, streaming services ARE NOT making up the difference. Anyone hear that the New York audio show is being canceled because of not enough exhibitors? Or that the LA show was canceled last month? Audio store retailers are a thing of the past in most towns. There are, realistically, no more classical orchestral recordings being made in the USA (and relatively few in Europe). Keith raises an essential point above: once your entire collection is online, then you are at the mercy of that provider. If they go out of business, you're screwed. If you move, you're screwed. If they decide to change the rules, you're screwed. SO, just like the others on this thread, I continue buying CDs and rip them into JRiver. It is not in my best interests to support streaming services that do not provide an economic environment in which musicians can succeed. Why should you? Although it is true that overall revenue went down dramatically once digital/streaming started, over the last few year revenues have risen back up. By 2020 revenues are projected to be right back to where they were in the late 90's. Although not great, it is not the end of music as we know it. And sure some of the streamers will go away (Tidal most likely), but Spotify will likely be around. But what is lacking from your graph is the distribution of those revenues - that is, where are they ending up? Are the consolidating into fewer end points so that the most popular artists benefit while newer and less popular ones see less revenue (or, how much of the revenue depicted winds up with the artists versus elsewhere)? I think that is part of what Craig159 is trying to point out. Also, what could end up happening is as streaming acquires an increasing proportion of the market, you become increasingly at their mercy in terms of pricing and structure. The less alternatives available, the more they can get away with. |
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Aug 21, 2018 11:30:55 GMT -5
Although it is true that overall revenue went down dramatically once digital/streaming started, over the last few year revenues have risen back up. By 2020 revenues are projected to be right back to where they were in the late 90's. Although not great, it is not the end of music as we know it. And sure some of the streamers will go away (Tidal most likely), but Spotify will likely be around. But what is lacking from your graph is the distribution of those revenues - that is, where are they ending up? Are the consolidating into fewer end points so that the most popular artists benefit while newer and less popular ones see less revenue (or, how much of the revenue depicted winds up with the artists versus elsewhere)? I think that is part of what Craig159 is trying to point out. Also, what could end up happening is as streaming acquires an increasing proportion of the market, you become increasingly at their mercy in terms of pricing and structure. The less alternatives available, the more they can get away with. I agree that we have no idea how the money is split up from this pie. We also have no idea how is was split in the past, so without data there really is no way to say the "old" model was better for artist then the "new" digital model. Also you are correct as streaming becomes bigger they will be able to make larger demands on payouts, thus limiting the bargaining power of artist. I would think that if you spend $10 each month on a CD or $10 a month on streaming services then the artist would see pretty similar incomes. The advantage of streaming is the guaranteed $10 per month revenue as opposed to the ebbs and flows of physical media sales. I don't think either one is better than the other as both have advantages, it is just sometimes I feel like the death of the music industry is blamed on streaming, where based on this chart you can see that physical media sales were already dropping before digital took off (sales drop off could have be a factor of Napster downloads killing cd sales, but there is no good way to track that.). Its possible to argue that digital/streaming has saved the industry. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 21, 2018 11:46:45 GMT -5
I can tell you that I also often feel disparaged by CD users. So perhaps the flip side of that question is "Why do so many CD users seem intent on disparaging those of us who prefer streaming?" Except for comments on this forum (a small place), I have very rarely (if ever) heard any "normal" person in my personal life (again, a small place) state what you are flipping around. On the contrary, every single person I know at work thinks I'm very weird buying CD's. The people I do know that still use and like CD's don't go out of their way to bash streaming. They just buy CD's and go about their own merry way. On the contrary, streamers tend to go out of their way to knock CD's and people who still like them. I've used the Apple vs Android comparo before, and I say it one more time. I don't personally know of any Android user that walks around bragging about which phone they have. They just buy the phone they want and shut up about it. But Iphone users, OMG. But to answer your question directly, it's this:Streaming is FORCING CD's out the door. It's not like say DVD over VHS, where every single quality about the format was better. Streaming has some great strong points, but to say it's overwhelmingly better in every aspect is pure rubbish. I'd call them close to equal myself. Yet the CD is going away and I am being forced to give up many of my rights (as Keith has pointed out). That's exactly what's happening, and that's why we are angry, and we have every reason to be. Streamers have no reason to be angry. |
|
KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 21, 2018 11:50:27 GMT -5
I read a very interesting, and quite in-depth, analysis of the business model that applies to most streaming services (if I can find it again I will post the link).
The catch seems to be that the streaming services have a business model that is rather different than other types of distribution - and it doesn't scale well at all.
With most music production, as well as video content and software, there is a huge up-front cost to produce content, but an opportunity to make a profit by achieving sufficient volume. If streaming services were simply purchasing content outright, or paying to produce their own content, this model would be true for them as well.
(If your production costs are more or less fixed, your profits are tied to sales volume, so there is some point where you're selling enough to make a profit.)
And, in retail sales, there is usually also a significant factor related to economy of scale. If you produce ten times as much of any product, the cost per-unit goes down... and this is usually true to a degree even with products that include expensive materials or a lot of labor. (So, if you make ten times as many, and sell each for the same price, you make more profit overall.)
However, most streaming services pay licensing fees that are tied to their sales volume. In other words, BOTH THEIR COSTS AND THEIR REVENUE ARE TIED TO THE NUMBER OF SUBSCRIBERS THEY HAVE. If they're losing money today, and they double both their revenues and their costs, by doubling their number of subscribers, they will simply lose more money tomorrow. In terms familiar to retail sales, there is NO economy of scale on their costs, and so their costs per-customer don't drop as their sales volume increases.
As long as this relationship holds true, they will never of reach a point where they turn a profit. (If you lose money on every sale, and there is no significant economy of scale, you will NOT "make it up in volume".)
The problem is that far too many people seem not to understand these relationships very well... Many folks who run businesses, and many investors, seem to assume that, if you increase the number of subscribers, you WILL start being profitable - no matter what else is going on.
What the streaming services need to do is to alter their business model so they can make a profit. And, quite obviously, this is going to entail charging more money (either by directly raising prices, or by finding additional services they can sell to their existing subscribers). Alternately, they must find a way to lower costs - perhaps by negotiating lower licensing fees. Streaming customers have become used to low prices; so no streaming service can drastically raise their prices without sacrificing market share. Yet performers are already complaining that they don't make much money on streaming... Therefore it seems unlikely that we'll see LOWER licensing fees...
Also note that the music industry LIVES on those promotional fees and extra costs. (A major music production company will never he heard to say: "Everybody knows who this guy is; we don't need to do any promotion; let's save everyone the commission".)
It is MOST unlikely that they will ever agree to stop taking their share of the profits - at least voluntarily.
My prediction is that we'll start to see limitations on the services themselves - with more premium offerings. "Basic services" will remain at the current low prices, but we'll start to see more expensive premium offerings... coupled with limitations on the basic services. Essentially, they're going to have to follow the model that cable companies do. The price of the basic subscription will remain low, but you'll find that some music requires a premium subscription... Or they will start producing exclusive content - which is only available to people who buy the premium subscription... Or you may find that new albums only become available immediately upon release if you pay extra... non-premium subscribers wait a month.
And older albums mysteriously disappear from the basic service - and reappear only on a premium "oldies channel".
Or the lossy version of the service will remain at the current price - but you'll be asked to pay a larger premium for the high quality version. That last option seems unlikely, simply because not enough people will be willing to pay extra for better quality to significantly improve profits.
Another option would be the equivalent of pay-per-view TV.
(The basic service gives you access to five million songs; everything else will cost you a dime per listen.)
The bottom line is that, however much the customers may like it, the current business model just isn't working.
And, eventually, there just plain won't be any more investors willing to pour money into the pit.
Spotify has gone public and a lot of big-money investors have made it their bet to become the "Google music" of the future. Yet it has never made a profit. Tidal is on the brink of bankruptcy and hasn't paid a number of licensed performers for months. So any higher-quality feeds it pays for are just another nail in its coffin. SO, this is the third time I have stressed this on the Lounge: The funding for streaming services is not based on real world costs and their major technique continues to be: low-ball subscriptions in order to get a customer base. Once the realities of costs are dealt with, the subscription prices are going up -- dramatically so. The costs of actually producing a world-class recording are very, very high. Many just focus on the studio recording costs -- that can be in the 6 figures. But the musicians involved have got to buy, then learn their instruments. Then they have to rehearse and write the material -- paying for time and space. Then producers tack on marketing, promotion, and other costs. AND, most recordings remain unsuccessful by "hit" standards. So paying a fraction of a cent per play on a subscription service is not going to add up to enough revenue to recoup costs -- not even close and not even if the track has many millions of hits. Posted a NYT article on the Lounge that shows musicians are giving up everywhere because they can't make enough to live. The "suits" are saying this on the Grammy shows. Once you generate an environment in which economic failure is assured, then the best talents will not enter the field. I was a music professor for many years and know -- the best minds are not going into music these days. SO the average listener can believe they do not care about costs and just want their music fix but the upcoming (or perhaps current) reality is that once better minds/talents do not enter the field, your music fix is going to be less and less interesting. CD sales used to provide a revenue base that helped support performers, producers, and audio manufacturers. Now that this revenue is largely gone, streaming services ARE NOT making up the difference. Anyone hear that the New York audio show is being canceled because of not enough exhibitors? Or that the LA show was canceled last month? Audio store retailers are a thing of the past in most towns. There are, realistically, no more classical orchestral recordings being made in the USA (and relatively few in Europe). Keith raises an essential point above: once your entire collection is online, then you are at the mercy of that provider. If they go out of business, you're screwed. If you move, you're screwed. If they decide to change the rules, you're screwed. SO, just like the others on this thread, I continue buying CDs and rip them into JRiver. It is not in my best interests to support streaming services that do not provide an economic environment in which musicians can succeed. Why should you? |
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Aug 21, 2018 11:51:24 GMT -5
I can tell you that I also often feel disparaged by CD users. So perhaps the flip side of that question is "Why do so many CD users seem intent on disparaging those of us who prefer streaming?" Except for comments on this forum (a small place), I have very rarely (if ever) heard any "normal" person in my personal life (again, a small place) state what you are flipping around. On the contrary, every single person I know at work thinks I'm very weird buying CD's. The people I do know that still use and like CD's don't go out of their way to bash steaming. They just buy CD's and go about their own merry way. On the contrary, streamers tend to go out of their way to knock CD's and people who still like them. I've used the Apple vs Android comparo before, and I say it one more time. I don't personally know of any Android user that walks around bragging about which phone they have. They just buy the phone they want and shut up about it. But Iphone users, OMG. But to answer your question directly, it's this:Steaming is FORCING CD's out the door. It's not like say DVD over VHS, where every single quality about the format was better. Steaming has some great strong points, but to say it's overwhelmingly better in every aspect is pure rubbish. I'd call them close to equal myself. Yet the CD is going away and I am being forced to give up many of my rights (as Keith has pointed out). That's exactly what's happening. I have absolutely experienced "audiophiles" disparaging streaming choices, directed at me, even though I absolutely agree that CDs sound better. I agree that CDs can be ripped into a library and played digitally. Streaming is not forcing CDs out the door. The MARKET is pushing them out. BIG difference. If enough people still want CDs and buy CDs, they'll still make them. If the labels REALLY want to stop making CDs in favor of streaming, why did they fight Apple so hard at the launch of the iTunes Music Store? They were selling CDs with literally no copy protection, that had the overhead of manufacturing a physical product, and shipping that physical product. They were being offered an opportunity to sell their content with zero overhead. They didn't want to give the consumer the option of buying a single track. They didn't want to give up control. Both of these things benefit the consumer. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 21, 2018 12:00:17 GMT -5
I have absolutely experienced "audiophiles" disparaging streaming choices, directed at me, even though I absolutely agree that CDs sound better. I agree that CDs can be ripped into a library and played digitally. Audiophiles are the small group on this forum. Audiophiles represent a VERY small number of people in the grand scheme. In comparison, the number of non-audiophile "normal" people who disparage CD's and the people who like them is HUGE. Semantics. Chicken or the egg. Of course since streaming isn't a living organism it can't be doing the forcing itself. It's not Skynet, yet. And this is exactly my wish. One I'm willing to fight for, which is exactly what I'm doing here. Unfortunately the world of "normal" people are like lemmings diving off a cliff or a herd of stampeding cattle. It's hard to reason with them or stop the damage before it's too late. NOTE: I edited my post above while you are replying, mainly the last sentence or two that I added. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,256
|
Post by KeithL on Aug 21, 2018 12:00:47 GMT -5
Bingo.
The streaming companies seem to be making plenty of REVENUE.... however they're still losing money... with no end in sight. Revenue is fine... but a company needs profits to survive. The streaming companies must find a way to make a PROFIT... and soon...
If you look at Spotify's financials..... For the last quarter, their subscribership was up, and their Revenue was up significantly... But, yet, their LOSSES were about 7% of their revenue. (They LOST approximately 90 million Euros for the quarter).
Something has got to change.... before the money runs out....
Note that this has nothing to do with the performers.... nor with how much money they make. If Spotify can't make a profit, then Spotify goes bust.
And whoever replaces them will have to do something different to avoid the same fate.
Although it is true that overall revenue went down dramatically once digital/streaming started, over the last few year revenues have risen back up. By 2020 revenues are projected to be right back to where they were in the late 90's. Although not great, it is not the end of music as we know it. And sure some of the streamers will go away (Tidal most likely), but Spotify will likely be around. But what is lacking from your graph is the distribution of those revenues - that is, where are they ending up? Are the consolidating into fewer end points so that the most popular artists benefit while newer and less popular ones see less revenue (or, how much of the revenue depicted winds up with the artists versus elsewhere)? I think that is part of what Craig159 is trying to point out. Also, what could end up happening is as streaming acquires an increasing proportion of the market, you become increasingly at their mercy in terms of pricing and structure. The less alternatives available, the more they can get away with. |
|
|
|
Post by thrillcat on Aug 21, 2018 12:03:57 GMT -5
And this is exactly my wish. One I'm willing to fight for, which is exactly what I'm doing here. Unfortunately the world of "normal" people are like lemmings diving off a cliff or a herd of stampeding cattle. It's hard to reason with them or stop the damage before it's too late. NOTE: I edited my post above while you are replying, mainly the last sentence or two that I added. Am I wrong in reading this is you calling me a lemming diving off a cliff because I personally prefer streaming over CDs because it fits my lifestyle better and turns me on to more new music than any other option? EDIT: If so, I rest my case and will respectfully bow out of this thread from here on. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 21, 2018 12:09:29 GMT -5
If the labels REALLY want to stop making CDs in favor of streaming, why did they fight Apple so hard at the launch of the iTunes Music Store? They were selling CDs with literally no copy protection, that had the overhead of manufacturing a physical product, and shipping that physical product. They were being offered an opportunity to sell their content with zero overhead. They didn't want to give the consumer the option of buying a single track. They didn't want to give up control. It appears you did the same thing, editing your post while I was replying.   Well I don't have time right now to go all the way down this road, but from your comments here you are looking at it kind of backwards if you ask me. Nuff said for now. Just quickly, you do bring up a good point. Copy protection. Unfortunately there almost always has to be at least one big huge loser to make others pay attention to a problem, and the CD got the shaft on this one. If any form of entertainment should have gone the way of the dodo due to digital tech, it's the physical book. The fact that it still exists gives me hope for the future of the CD and other physical formats. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 21, 2018 12:17:51 GMT -5
And this is exactly my wish. One I'm willing to fight for, which is exactly what I'm doing here. Unfortunately the world of "normal" people are like lemmings diving off a cliff or a herd of stampeding cattle. It's hard to reason with them or stop the damage before it's too late. NOTE: I edited my post above while you are replying, mainly the last sentence or two that I added. Am I wrong in reading this is you calling me a lemming diving off a cliff because I personally prefer streaming over CDs because it fits my lifestyle better and turns me on to more new music than any other option? EDIT: If so, I rest my case and will respectfully bow out of this thread from here on. Yes, you are wrong about what I'm calling you, because I distinguish you as an audiophile, not as what I'm calling a "normal" person. There is a difference. Audiophiles aren't driving anything, we are just along for the ride. You prefer the benefits of streaming and I get that, because it does have benefits. At the same time, you also realize CD has benefits. Perfect. "Normal" lemming people just blindly go with the trends not thinking or considering what the decisions they are making mean. You are not one of these. Far from it from what I can tell here. Actually, I don't think too many, if any, truly fit that mold here. At least not to the definition I'm referring to. I would love it if could just all get along on this topic. I like streaming, I just like CD's more. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2018 15:11:29 GMT -5
Great discussion, guys and (presumably, at least I hope) Ladies. It's been very entertaining. My closing thoughts are as follows:
This is a very 21st-Century discussion. Prior to that, there were a few recording technologies for music (CDs, tape, records)and before Edison et al. there was music, likely for tens of thousands of years, either passed down by performance or, at least for the last 500 years or so, in written musical language. In fact, most the music I love most, classical, predates recording technology, with one exception: scores. So, for me, I hang onto semi-permanent CDs of that music, which is an incredible blessing, and if business models and the music business go away from what I like I can always read scores or go to concerts or finally get proficient at piano. Music that has survived hundreds of years will likely survive hundreds of years more. No worries, mates. Just enjoy the music.
|
|
|
|
Post by Boomzilla on Aug 21, 2018 16:16:50 GMT -5
I agree with craigl59 - The streaming services DO have revenue, but no profits. I predict that if ANY of the streaming services find a way to turn a profit (other than by not paying their royalty bills) they'll quickly be purchased in toto by Apple. Apple can afford to buy them all right now - but it makes no sense to do so. All the streamers are on the highway to Hell already - let'em cruise! Apple is NOT going out of business. Apple can buy any competitor and just throw them away to keep them off the market. And as I said - any one of the internet-streaming-shrimp that finds an honest way to be profitable is just lunch for the Apple predator shark. Apple can also afford to offer a "new deal" to the musicians, paying them a fair profit for their products. Should they choose to do so, they'll then market their company as the "benevolent-to-artists company" to move even more consumers toward ever more Apple-centric purchasing. For the consumer, an Apple streaming service (a real one - not iTunes) would do away with the concern of future stability. Apple, should they choose to, can offer streaming music at a loss in perpetuity without even taking a mouse bite out of the corporate profit-cheese. So yes, current streaming companies are probably destined for bankruptcy. But if any survive in the short term, they're not going to survive independently for any medium or long-term period. Whether you LIKE Apple or not, you'd BETTER recognize their market-dominance in any field that they really want to compete in. And from watching their strategies in other areas, I strongly suspect that streaming music IS a strong part of Apple's long-term strategy. Boomzilla |
|
|
|
Post by davidl81 on Aug 21, 2018 16:19:17 GMT -5
I agree with craigl59 - The streaming services DO have revenue, but no profits. I predict that if ANY of the streaming services find a way to turn a profit (other than by not paying their royalty bills) they'll quickly be purchased in toto by Apple. Apple can afford to buy them all right now - but it makes no sense to do so. All the streamers are on the highway to Hell already - let'em cruise! Apple is NOT going out of business. Apple can buy any competitor and just throw them away to keep them off the market. And as I said - any one of the internet-streaming-shrimp that finds an honest way to be profitable is just lunch for the Apple predator shark. Apple can also afford to offer a "new deal" to the musicians, paying them a fair profit for their products. Should they choose to do so, they'll then market their company as the "benevolent-to-artists company" to move even more consumers toward ever more Apple-centric purchasing. For the consumer, an Apple streaming service (a real one - not iTunes) would do away with the concern of future stability. Apple, should they choose to, can offer streaming music at a loss in perpetuity without even taking a mouse bite out of the corporate profit-cheese. So yes, current streaming companies are probably destined for bankruptcy. But if any survive in the short term, they're not going to survive independently for any medium or long-term period. Whether you LIKE Apple or not, you'd BETTER recognize their market-dominance in any field that they really want to compete in. And from watching their strategies in other areas, I strongly suspect that streaming music IS a strong part of Apple's long-term strategy. Boomzilla Apple already has their streaming service (Apple Music), which if I am not mistaken has the 2nd largest paid user base in the US. I'll double check that. It's $9.99 a month. Just did some internet research and Apple Music is virtually tied with Spotify in US paid accounts (appx 19 million each), but Spotify has a much larger global user base (71 Million versus 38 Million). These numbers come from some quick google work so I'm sure there could be some error in there. |
|
|
|
Post by Loop 7 on Aug 21, 2018 19:17:36 GMT -5
Just did some internet research and Apple Music is virtually tied with Spotify in US paid accounts (appx 19 million each), but Spotify has a much larger global user base (71 Million versus 38 Million). As I commented earlier in the thread, I think the big diversified companies may ultimately be the only streaming providers to survive. Apple and Google can offer streaming products at a loss indefinitely whereas the streaming only companies have a tougher road. Spotify's global numbers (paid and free) certainly are huge. |
|
|
|
Post by Bonzo on Aug 21, 2018 19:52:50 GMT -5
Keith, we all well know your personal preferences by now, which are not shared by all nor are they the only lens with which to look at this. You are 100% correct. But perhaps you can understand why no matter what he has said on this topic, it has been done with thorough thought out answers, full detailed explanations of his opinions, and logical reasoning the way I see it. Not the one sentence smart ass derogetory quips you appear to like to provide. You still have not confirmed that you at least understand where I'm coming from. Perhaps trying to understand each other isn't important to you? 😐 No need for you to displel. I don't remember anyone here saying that, at least not recently. And besides, you have made that just as plainly clear as I have my wanting for analog inputs and outputs in modern processors. You love your Tidal and I want my analog inputs/outputs, that much is broken record clear, by both of us. On a side note, I'd be willing to bet you which becomes irrelevant first, Tidal or analog inputs/ outputs? |
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs 
Official Emofest Scribe
Posts: 15,086
Member is Online
|
Post by klinemj on Aug 21, 2018 20:42:44 GMT -5
It seems as though the same arguments are being made over and over...it's deja vu all over again.
One point Keith made is worth a counter-point though. He generalized that people who like CD's dislike/have a problem with people who stream and vice-versa. He said "Why do people who like streaming seem to have a problem with people who like CDs?
Why do people who like CDs have a problem with people who like streaming (and with streaming in general)?"
Not true. I would say there are people who love streaming who are done w/CD's. There are people who love CD's but dislike streaming (either due to quality/perceived quality, fear of streaming companies going out of business, or the "rent vs. own" thing). But, I don't think that there is any significant chunk of people who dislike or have a problem with other people based on their preferred listening vehicle.
Mark
|
|
