Apple's Plan to Own the Entire Music Industry | Hacker News Reader

Apple's Plan to Own the Entire Music Industry

aboveavalon.com

42 pointsheisenbit44 comments

I disagree with Exibit 1. Apple Music came much later than Spotify, when paying a subscription fee for music (or movies/series) was much more accepted than when Spotify started. I don't think you should compare the two like this.

Thats how Apple works. They never truely innovate, they latch onto an existing idea and then market the hell out of it. This works because Apple seems to have a special attention within the media business, and thus end up being written/talked about in non-tech circles. Thus the public get the impression that Apple did it first, even if it has been going on for ages below the proverbial radar.

They identify an existing market and try to do it better than the existing players. It's not just marketing. That's an unfair statement.

People who say it's "just marketing" are more right than they know for the wrong reasons. They think they're saying "it's just branding and advertising". In reality, it's the fact that Apple spends a ton of time understanding the market for their devices, and goes out of their way to make products that are a good fit for their needs.

Marketing is so much more than branding and promotion. People should stop using the word marketing all together..

Considering tbeir R&D is relatively low, they do tremendous market research.

They haven't done anything better with Apple Music though. The client for the phone and for OS X are both atrocious. The experience is significantly worse than the experience provided by Spotify and other competitors.

But, that's okay. Throughout history they have had hits and misses. It doesn't change that this is their approach for how to be successful.

True -- I tried it when I came out but I can't see myself going back. I appreciate the artist-focused approach to the platform and the focus on radio, but I had to have a phone replaced because of the app when it was initially launched (it caused the phone to heat up to the point the battery was damaged and Apple replaced it).

name one thing (with the exception of macbooks) that apple did better than anyone else

As much as I love hating on Apple as much as the next person... they have developed taking products (iPod, iPhone especially) - and turning them into fairly polished products - into an art.

I'd get my mom and iPhone/iPad before I got her an Android/Tablet.

It's that simplicity that "ordinary" people gravitate towards - which I, as a power user, hate.

You could argue that Android/Windows gives more power to the user - but Apple makes better "appliances" than anyone else. Appliances don't get tweaked or twiddled with.

I think the better way to look at it is that Apple doesn't produce gadgets to appeal to early adopters, they produce gadgets to appeal to everyone and get early adopters to try it.

There were lots of MP3 players before the iPod, and they all had lots of features, most of which were terrible and confusing. No one had made an MP3 player to appeal to the mass market, they were designing them for the existing users of MP3 players, the early adopters.

Along came Apple and designed a device that everyone could want and use, and a lot of the early adopters saw that it was a superior product in a lot of ways. After that they iterated on it to improve it and make it more appealing to more and more people.

I agree with your sentiment that Android, Windows, and, I assume you would agree, Linux, provide more customization options to the user, and there's a huge part of me that loves being able to tweak things to work exactly right. I bought a Mac to replace my Dell, however, because I was tired of having to tweak things to work exactly right and I was happy to invest in a known quantity. There's nothing empowering about a system you have to work to maintain constantly. That's the appeal with Apple's products.

Don't forget the "rip. Mix. Burn." Marketing campaign that mainstreamed cd ripping and that Pepsi giveaway of music.

OSX, Messages (SMS relay in particular), phone hardware, iOS security, privacy, and battery efficiency.

Trackpads too. Laptop displays. The original iPhone for sure.

Seriously it took PC MFGs until 2015 to get trackpads to be not awful, when Apple had great ones like a decade before. The clickpad was copied by basically every PC laptop maker and I didn't use one that wasn't terrible until last year. For better or worse, everyone rips off what Apple does, even if Apple didn't do it first, and the rip-offs are generally really bad. People buy them thinking that "it's the same thing".

Hey, you were only supposed to name one ;-)

They bought NeXT better than anyone, so Cocoa, still best GUI toolbox 25 years after it was originally created. What a sad industry we are :-/

It works. So if it ain't broke don't fix it.

Something being old doesn't mean it isn't still great.

MP3 players.

The iPod. By specs, no, but by interface and by usability, very yes. (Also I think they were among the first to include headphones that weren't complete junk?)

The iPhone. I use an Android phone, but...I'm not gonna front on this one. At least for a while, and there is an argument that this continues to today, nobody was touching the iPhone.

The iPad. Android tablets, to this day, are really kinda lousy (source: the stack of them sitting on my desk, unpowered) with poor application support. Windows tablets are okay, but they're a different market; iPad competitors, the Surface RT line, plunked without a trace.

iPod had better specs when it came out if you look at battery life, transfer speed, and charge speed. Turns out if you get those right people don't care as much about WiFi and FM radio.

- iPhone

- iMac

- OS

- retina displays

- fingerprint reader on phone

- no-install peripheral support that "just works" from the typical user's perspective

- iPad

- keyboards

- trackpads

- general product design

- OS-level security

Their software quality has, of course, been declining for several years now. Their software design choices are becoming increasingly questionable. Their hardware quality is beginning to show some problems (merely anecdata from experiences I've had with recent hardware for the first time).

Of course, determining what Apple has done better than competitors is frequently a subjective decision.

Yes re: security. UAC was awful and annoying, but I don't have much of a problem entering my admin password in OSX.

One could argue that they did pretty well with the iPhone

Wow, you're so compromised you can't even see it.

the iPod? the iPhone?

RIP

phones

Passionately thrown absolute statement ("never ... innovate") indicates you have some personal problem with / hidden agenda against Apple - what was the issue that put you off so strongly?

Your implied definition of "innovation" means more less that most innovation comes from SF writers - the rest are just copy-cats.

You must have the same opinion regarding Elon Musk's Tesla - "they never truly innovate", right?

Overall, this article is actually pretty poor analysis. It tried to be analytical but doesn't actually provide compelling evidence or analysis. Instead, it just presents a 4-step strategy without causal links between the steps. Worst of all, there's no justification for why Apple would want to "create an environment for independent artist sustainability" as their end goal.

I completely disagree with Exhibit 1 (the growth chart) signaling a positive trajectory for Apple. Tellingly, it looks like the exact opposite of the Spotify chart: huge initial growth which is rapidly tapering growth. In contrast, Spotify's growth follows that of a traditional viral product: growing exponentially up and to the right.

Moreover, I don't think Apple is positioning themselves to succeed. Their software quality is near an all-time low. [0] They're doubling down on human curation while Spotify has been doing amazingly with Discover Weekly.

Just look at user reviews. On Android, Apple Music has 3.3 stars. [1] Spotify? 4.5 stars. IMO, Spotify is even able to deliver a superior product on Apple's own platform. Apple Music continues to be buggy, error-prone, and significantly less than delightful every time I try it.

[0] This drove me to finally sell my shares after nearly a decade.

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.apple.andr...

[2] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.spotify.mu...

I agree, sadly. Between home and business I've spent like $750k on Apple in the last couple of years, and won't buy anything but an iPhone right now.

Apple software for photos (you cannot order different size prints in the same order) and music is half complete crap.

They can't ship a decent new Mac. They can't do incremental updates on old Macs. Even the most inept competitors (HP) are catching up hardware wise.

They need to ditch Jony and Cook.

Apple could just buy the entire music industry. Total US revenue for the music industry is $15 billion and dropping. (Revenue peaked in 1998 around $38 billion in current dollars.) Apple revenue is around $225 <strike>million</strike> billion.

Music can only be a side business for Apple. It's just not big enough.

Also, all this talk about streaming being a new model is pretty silly. Rhapsody started its unlimited music streaming service in 2001. Apple started offering paid music downloads two years later. Streaming isn't something new that's going to revitalize or destroy the music industry, just an old well-devleoped model that has been growing as people got better mobile speeds.

What Apple needs music for is the branding. Apple attached itself to music because the industry had the mindshare of cool locked down for generations.

I've noticed a big difference in coverage over just the last few years. Before then there were large swathes of content that just wasn't licensed to any streaming services, unlike today.

Apple now has more of the mindshare of cool than the music industry.

You mean "Apple revenue is around $225 billion"

I think this article is onto something. I've recently switched over from Spotify to Apple Music subscription. While it's not perfect, I'm finding the user experience much better. Also, if a song is not listed in iTunes library, I can add the mp3's from my computer to playlist and it will automatically show up on my iPhone as well.

What I would really love to see if a single stream platform that has roughly 99.99% of all music available for streaming. None of this exclusive content nonsense.

Why does the Spotify graph look like the bottom of a sigmoid and the Apple graph look like the top of a sigmoid. Just a statistical quirk? Or does free + paid have a higher top line?

How does Spotify's ad-supported free play compare to FM/AM radio, back in the 70's? How much did the artists benefit from radio play, back then? Direct revenue or promotion?

I think Apple was able to front load a lot of the growth with the Apply Music free trial. It was long enough that enough subscribers forgot to cancel before they became "paying" and started getting billed.

Also curious that the writer could talk so much about iTunes while skipping over how critical free/pirated mp3s were for the iPod success. No MP3s, no iPod ; without the iPod, it would have been Winamp not iTunes.

The iPod had an advantage in being a very good MP3 player as consumers made their first step in to getting their music from the internet rather retail stores. It appealed to all listeners except those that couldn't stand compression loss. How Apple Music is or isn't accessed from non-Apple devices along with what incentives there are will make this more or much less like their original foray in to music.

It's interesting how the medium has played out: radio -> vinyl -> cd -> mp3 -> p2p -> iPod -> iTunes -> radio (as Spotify, Beats, et al)

Minor quibble, but you forgot tape :)

Most of it seems far-fetched and conspiracy theorylike. Also, it seems this is the only topic this blogger is writing about? Talk about a niche.

Why is it like a conspiracy theory? Surely most companies have ambitious plans to take over their industry. Obviously most of these plans don't hold up as the competition responds to them, but that's just the nature of business.

Apple has proven very capable in executing multi year strategic plans leveraging in one area to establish a new product or service in another. Apple has also proven adept to managing Eco systems along a vertical value chain - making sure a lot of the spoils go to them but also making sure their suppliers can manage.

Apple is at the moment lagging in music streaming despite huge investments in iCloud, Music Match and an entrenched iTunes (getting pushed in my face every time I plug my phone in). UX matters and iTunes is not convincing. But this can change. Developing a streaming client is not rocket science if a team would freed from backwards compatibility concerns.

Apple has a lot it can leverage in the music industry and not by accident:

- Headphones, Beats Playlists

- Audio supplier relationships

- Music, Movie and Book publisher contracts and relationships

- iTunes client

- App/iTunes customer billing relationships

- iPhone platform - leading in higher income customer households

- App store - monopoly on iOS and growing on OSX

- Brand

- War-chest

Apple is in a tricky position here politically. They got their hands slapped when trying to establish a pricing regime in the book business while being far from dominant Apple was working with dominant players (who each controlled a large set of IPR artwork monopolies). The big hurdle is regulatory. Anti trust law allows building monopolies organically but frowns on using power like acquisitions by industry leaders or leveraging one strength into another industry with aggressive loss-leading pricing etc..

Why are we talking these days about setting prices here in a free market in the first place? Considering the power on the distribution side almost all artists have not enough power to make level deals. That was always the case but for a long time artists were free to take their business elsewhere. Then publishers concentrated. Now streaming channels take in part their place. Their number is not large either.

Apples proposal for higher payment for artists may make sense for artists and the whole value chain up to our ears. It is very problematic for newcomers like Spotify who rely on low costs to acquire new customers. Their lure is the free tier. Apple does not need this as much as it has already a billing relationship and less "free" drives demand. Also let's be clear there is no real "free". Spotify is loss leading by VCs, advertisers in case of radio or fees in case e.g. Germany.

Apple can't be happy. Unlike a minor new player like Spotify they would get into regulatory hot water with aggressive loss leading streaming. Changing the rules to higher streaming fees would shift everything towards paying platforms. Apple demands a 30% cut and so far has held the line and has forced Amazon and Spotify to sell their media content outside their App. That again is something regulators will look closely at. It will be interesting to see whether Apple can square the wheel.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com