|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
107.205.10.55
In Reply to: RE: Another look at consumer spending on recorded music posted by Chris from Lafayette on July 27, 2015 at 12:25:02
...is what music format will be dominant in 5 years? or 10 years?
Streaming services are not profitable and most likely will never be (see the article I posted below).
So where do we go from here?
Follow Ups:
Apple Music might be a game changer, in that there is no real free option. To stream music from Apple, you will have to pay $10/month. If Apple can secure tens of millions of subscribers, or even more (they have 800+ million accounts), that's an enormous amount of revenue that will go into the music industry.
It is far too early to guess the impact that Apple Music will have on the industry. I never once streamed any music before joining Apple Music. It's a bizarre experience having immediate access to 35 million tunes. I've listened to at least 60 albums or more since the service started 4 weeks ago. I've discovered an ENORMOUS amount of music that I never would have heard if I were stuck in a pay for each album model. There are significant benefits to streaming and I am now a convert. I never thought that I'd get to the day where I prefer to rent music vs buying it, but the ability to try new music easily and cheaply, is a real game changer for me. Apple Music's Beats 1 radio station is another major vector that has sent new music my way. I've found some of the best tunes I've ever heard in my life from some of their radio shows. It's really shaken me out of my normal listening habits and I'm really grateful to find this new music.
Hopefully there's a good future for all musicians.
...from memory.
So far 10 million Apple music subscribers - the only way you can get it is to pay.
20 million paid Spotify subscribers out of maybe 40 million listeners.
4 million Pandora subscribers out of 50 million.
Just look at where all that consumer spending has gone. People are paying huge monthly fees for internet, smart phone and TV service, often to one provider. In fact, a TV is now basically a very large computer monitor, and a smart phone is a very small one.
That is where entertainment dollars are going, and people expect to get their entertainment, music included, from those dollars, and from their smart phones, computers and TVs. IMO, the music industry and other content owners are being legally raped by the internet access providers like Verizon, Sprint, and T-Mobile and the satellite and cable providers, as well as Apple, Microsoft and Google. That's who is getting the money these days.
...I agree that streaming music, like films, is likely to dominate with the use of smartphones, iPads, laptops and still TVs.
But how will they monetize it? I can listen to a Comcast music channel with no audible ads or pay extra for Pandora or Spotify.
Personally, I'm waiting for a youtube TV channel to watch my choice of new music videos.
We aren't quite at the convergence of TVs and computers - maybe Apple TV will do it.
IMO the legal landscape needs to change. Right now the internet service providers and telecommunication companies have nearly all the power and get nearly all the money. Some have already suggested they should be held directly responsible for internet piracy. They could also be made to pay content owners for their customers' streaming and/or downloads and required to collect those payments from their customers.
Your monthly Verizon, Sprint or T-Mobile bill could include an extra charge for music streaming and downloads, as it does for general data and phone use. As I said, people want to pay one monthly bill for their electronic entertainment. They don't want to buy each piece of music (or movie, for that matter) from a different seller/content owner, as they did in the old days.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: