Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,905
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on May 11, 2016 19:49:01 GMT -5
|
|
maine
Moderator
Joined: February 2014
Posts: 27,253 
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by maine on May 11, 2016 20:07:18 GMT -5
what
|
|
ry4n
7x Platinum Member
Joined: November 2014
Posts: 7,201
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by ry4n on May 11, 2016 20:14:25 GMT -5
It's weird to think that digital singles are about to the go the way of the long-dead physical single.
|
|
Arabella21
Platinum Member
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 1,381 
|
Post by Arabella21 on May 11, 2016 20:17:11 GMT -5
:o
Wonder what the music industry will have to say about this... No iTunes downloads means no digital album sales from Apple, either. I guess Apple thinks it will push everyone who still buys downloads onto to Apple Music? Then what happens when the next big thing after streaming makes the industry even less money, which isn't very much to begin with?
|
|
Kurt
Administrator
#1: Jacob Collier f/John Legend & Tori Kelly – "Bridge Over Troubled Water"
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 22,611
My Charts
Pronouns: he/him
Staff
|
Post by Kurt on May 11, 2016 20:23:05 GMT -5
|
|
Az Paynter
Diamond Member
On Dsico's Block List™
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 110,475
|
Post by Az Paynter on May 11, 2016 20:47:54 GMT -5
I would hope it's not true. Terminating music downloads would effectively kill the entire music industry. 'Cause what's the point of making a product if there's no way for people to actually buy it? Unless in some roundabout way it forces people to go back to consuming physical product, which I don't see happening.
The business can not be supported by streaming alone, which is why this would be such a disastrous idea if it were EVER being seriously considered.
|
|
|
|
Post by Live Your Life on May 11, 2016 20:50:57 GMT -5
I do see this happening, but not this soon.
|
|
DJ General
5x Platinum Member
Dupe
Joined: March 2010
Posts: 5,932
|
Post by DJ General on May 11, 2016 21:42:27 GMT -5
LOL
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 12:35:32 GMT -5
If this were to happen, I'd see it being considerably more expensive than it is now. I mean, it makes sense (to me, even as a music collector) that the vast majority of people would prefer to pay $20/month to have access to ALL available music at our fingertips and not have to worry about damage, loss, storage capactiy, etc etc.
It's not a totally unrealistic notion to live in a streaming-only world someday, imo. I don't think it'll be in a few years, and Apple is denying that anyway.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,480
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on May 12, 2016 13:00:41 GMT -5
I'm not sure if a strictly streaming only world is going to happen, but it's definitely going to swing close to that direction. I've seen posts here talk about the value of a physical product, the benefits of it and all that, but one thing you have to realize is that with every subsequent generation, the percentage that shares those views is going to shrink more and more. The people going into college now have essentially always had the option of free music, and eventually we'll have a majority that never experienced music and pop culture without streaming being the most available and ready source of music discovery. The same way that the local record shop would have been to someone several decades ago. It's just the way of the world.
The next step I can see happening is the option for longer subscriptions with slight discounts (i.e. 3-month, 6-months, and year options with upfront payments) for the longer purchases to further secure a paying audience that will stay longer. Eventually, it'll get close to the point where the easiest way to get a physical product would be just to order it for yourself directly from a distributor. They'll be specialty items and purchases. Potentially more expensive than now, but the ones who are determined to have physical products (which will largely be older people with more disposable income) will pay up. That's the natural next stop for those people after the death of the record store.
This generational progression itself isn't even that new. I saw an interview with David Bowie from 1999 where he was talking about the Internet and how unlike his generation where you had to go out and seek music, younger individuals had grown up with it all around them. It pretty much started with the expansion of radio where you could have it in your car and workplace, then leading into MTV and the expansion of cable where you could have it in the background, and ultimately the Information age.
|
|
Az Paynter
Diamond Member
On Dsico's Block List™
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 110,475
|
Post by Az Paynter on May 12, 2016 13:47:59 GMT -5
But that's the problem with the streaming generation. They're so keyed into getting things for free that they don't realize that if the industry can't make money, it can't spend money in order to create product. The labels need money to function, and if the major avenue for music sales dries up, they won't be able to make enough money to sustain themselves (this is given what we know about how well streaming services pay out ie. not well at all). The only other avenue for making money would be touring and live shows, but that puts acts who don't perform much or don't have much pull with ticket buyers at a disadvantage. I mean, if they can't sell music and they can't sell shows, how do they make money when streaming alone won't cut it? The pool of content would dry up pretty much down to the artists that already have the mega-bucks, 'cause they're the ones that can be relied on to rake in the crowds and the millions.
It basically creates a vacuum where there is not enough supply to meet demand and it's not worth the investment trying to break in new artists if there's no real way for them to even start turning a profit, and nobody's going to pay to see an unknown act live. Streaming may be the future of the industry, but if it's the sole basis of the industry it will also be the death of it. That's what the streaming generation doesn't get.
|
|
Glove Slap
Administrator
Sweetheart
Downloading ༺༒༻ Possibilities
Joined: January 2007
Posts: 29,480
Staff
|
Post by Glove Slap on May 12, 2016 14:01:56 GMT -5
But that's the problem with the streaming generation. They're so keyed into getting things for free that they don't realize that if the industry can't make money, it can't spend money in order to create product. The labels need money to function, and if the major avenue for music sales dries up, they won't be able to make enough money to sustain themselves (this is given what we know about how well streaming services pay out ie. not well at all). The only other avenue for making money would be touring and live shows, but that puts acts who don't perform much or don't have much pull with ticket buyers at a disadvantage. I mean, if they can't sell music and they can't sell shows, how do they make money when streaming alone won't cut it? The pool of content would dry up pretty much down to the artists that already have the mega-bucks, 'cause they're the ones that can be relied on to rake in the crowds and the millions. It basically creates a vacuum where there is not enough supply to meet demand and it's not worth the investment trying to break in new artists if there's no real way for them to even start turning a profit, and nobody's going to pay to see an unknown act live. Streaming may be the future of the industry, but if it's the sole basis of the industry it will also be the death of it. That's what the streaming generation doesn't get. These are very good points. There will be a reconfiguration of the streaming model of payout at some point, there's just too much increased opposition from powerful people for there not to be, but even with that, I think it will ultimately come down to touring for nearly all acts. The rise of the 360 model is pretty much the dawn of the path to that. The live experience is pretty much the only real capital that will be left. Look at someone even big as Beyonce. Her last 2 albums have gotten acclaim not just for the music, but the concurrent visual setup. However, when you add up the cost of all that, the sales alone likely don't cover that. In a strictly traditional sense, it's a loss, but that's where the large touring revenue comes in makes up for it. The days of development in the way of holing people up in the studio with producers and leaving it at that are going to decline the way they have. Instead, they will focus on driving up ticket sales and live shows as much as they can. From there, it will go towards building a brand and generating money through non-musical ventures. The days of artists concentrating increasingly on non-musical projects simultaneously being viewed as sellouts is already mostly passé, and that doesn't look to change anytime soon, if at all. If you can't sell out shows, you'll unfortunately probably be pushed out eventually unless you get lucky in other departments, or just have financial capital from other ventures or sources. But I don't really realistically see any path towards a big spike in the sales of physical product or LPs in general that will be significant enough to offset what's been happening. |
|
|
|
Post by Ezekiel 23:20–21 on May 12, 2016 14:35:31 GMT -5
Even if this doesn't happen now, it could happen in the future. They have to think it through before they go down this road because there is no turning back.
It can be problematic to eliminate downloads because you can have the song if you bought it, and you can still stream it, but if it is removed from a store/platform because something changed with the rights or something, the label, or the artist just doesn't want a particular release or all of their releases, then you can't hear it. There have been instances where an artist's songs were removed from certain streaming sites after having been there before (Prince used to have most of his WB era material on all the major streaming platforms but when he got on board with Tidal, everything was removed) so there would be no way to hear/get those songs without illegally downloading them. And there are still those few artists who are not okay with having their music streamed on certain platforms (like Taylor Swift and Adele).
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 12, 2016 14:40:57 GMT -5
Even if this doesn't happen now, it could happen in the future. They have to think it through before they go down this road because there is no turning back. It can be problematic to eliminate downloads because you can have the song if you bought it, and you can still stream it, but if it is removed from a store/platform because something changed with the rights or something, the label, or the artist just doesn't want a particular release or all of their releases, then you can't hear it. There have been instances where an artist's songs were removed from certain streaming sites after having been there before (Prince used to have most of his WB era material on all the major streaming platforms but when he got on board with Tidal, everything was removed) so there would be no way to hear/get those songs without illegally downloading them. And there are still those few artists who are not okay with having their music streamed on certain platforms (like Taylor Swift and Adele). I get what you're saying as it applies to TODAY - but I don't think it would apply in an all-streaming world where there was no other way to get your recorded music out there. Some artists do it now because they can - sales-only is still an option. However, in a streaming-only world, they either make their music available to stream, or they won't have any recording revenue. Ezekiel 23:20–21 I suppose artists could say "I'll make my own downloads and/or physical products available" (like Prince has done in today's world)... but in a world where streaming is the norm... that doesn't sound like a smart option. Not to mention technology may not support and/or will totally phase out CD players or even MP3 players at that point. I guess my point is that in this new world, streaming will be widely accepted and the new norm, so CDs and even mp3s would be more of an unwanted hassle for the majority of consumers. |
|
|
|
Post by Ezekiel 23:20–21 on May 12, 2016 14:44:23 GMT -5
I could see some artists selling the music on their own websites. Or they press their own CDs and sell them at their shows and/or on their websites so they can get a bigger cut of the proceeds.
|
|
|
|
Post by thebillboardreviewer on May 22, 2016 19:40:32 GMT -5
Ugh. I hate streaming.
What if I actually want to support the artists making music? I get that streaming's popular, but at least give us the option to pay for it, eiminating the option to earn revenue from people who actually want to spend money is just stupid. If nothing else, keep it for nostalgia factor, it's still making you ALOT of money, and if they get rid of iTunes we need to start a boycott for Apple Music. Believe it or not people still buy actual physical singles! But it's not about that, iTunes is the same, all it does is it makes it easier to buy it, which is why do people people use it.
Streaming is different, all it does eliminates the value of something that's very valuable, and it should be illegal! To this day I still purchase all of my music on iTunes and I'm proud of that. I don't use streaming services, and as long as iTunes is here, I don't plan to. People just don't want to pay for something. Do you care about the artists? Would you like to support them? That's why music costs money, it's not easy to make, and it's the work if lots of talented people. Again, at the least very, Apple can give us the option to pay for something because some of us still believe that music is a valuable art, unlike most people these days sadly.
Apple is stupid if they do this, they're losing money from it! The music industry needs to take a stand on this and do something about it, right? They're not just going to let themselves lose al this money, right?
Ugh. I'm honestly so mad about this. I love iTunes and I'll probably still be using it in 2060, I don't even care.
I'll stop buying iPhones, and iMacs, or anything Aplle related. I'll boycott Apple entirely if they shut down iTunes. If they want to do Apple Music, fine. But keep iTunes please. It's still a new technology, and it's still making you tons of money! Don't get rid of it. Apple is going downhill fast, and it's a shame, they used to be a great company.
iTunes has improved so many lives, and it's incredible, This can't be serious, they can't seriously be considering this, not when so many loyal iTunes customers still happily pay lots of money for music because it's worth it to them, Apple can't do this, right?
#SaveiTunes
|
|
|
|
Post by thebillboardreviewer on May 22, 2016 20:24:52 GMT -5
|
|
Caviar
Diamond Member
Queen X
Joined: October 2003
Posts: 30,905
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his
|
Post by Caviar on May 22, 2016 20:33:30 GMT -5
Apple isn't stupid. They won't maintain two competing products for long. I give it 5 years max.
|
|
WotUNeed
2x Platinum Member
Deacon Blues
Joined: April 2010
Posts: 2,935
|
Post by WotUNeed on May 22, 2016 20:34:40 GMT -5
What if I actually want to support the artists making music? I get that streaming's popular, but at least give us the option to pay for it, eiminating the option to earn revenue from people who actually want to spend money is just stupid. Not that I think the ability to buy merchandise will ever completely go away, but if digital downloads do eventually get phased out in favor of streaming as a means of consumption, there are alternate models artists could use to capitalize on what you describe: fans' willingness to monetarily support the artists because they feel whatever connection or appreciation for the music being received. Think of something like Twitch, where you have a bunch of people streaming live video content for free, but then options to subscribe and/or donate to specific people's channels. Without trying to map out the specifics (because if I had them, I'd be shopping the idea and trying to cash in right now), I imagine something to that degree could, in the future, be incorporated into music streaming services, assuming artists (and/or their teams) were willing to put in whatever extra effort it would take to reinforce the notion of a personal connection. |
|
|
|
Post by thebillboardreviewer on May 22, 2016 20:55:13 GMT -5
Apple isn't stupid. They won't maintain two competing products for long. I give it 5 years max. Why not? iTunes has no competition, it's basically a monopoly. But Apple Music is just Apple's version of services like Spotify, Pandora, and Title (plus others I'm forgetting too). Apple Music and iTunes are pretty much one now, I wouldn't be surprised if in the future, Apple Music subscribers get to download music into their iTunes library, that's something no competitor can offer.
However, they'll still keeping iTunes open for those who want to pay that way and would rather not have a subscription service. iTunes is probably more profitable for Apple anyway.
|
|
Joe1240
6x Platinum Member
Taylor Swift-The Best in Pop & Country Music!
Joined: September 2003
Posts: 6,953
|
Post by Joe1240 on May 23, 2016 6:55:18 GMT -5
Glad it is not true.Some of us prefer to collections of songs by our favorite artists in ITunes format. ITunes does have competition with Google Play and Amazon MP3 but rarely do people buy their music from there. Glad there will still be some digital music around to have.
|
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,971
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on May 23, 2016 13:50:04 GMT -5
Can the OP change the thread title to reflect the debunking please? I think the continued thread title is confusing some posters
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2016 10:55:53 GMT -5
Glad it is not true.Some of us prefer to collections of songs by our favorite artists in ITunes format. ITunes does have competition with Google Play and Amazon MP3 but rarely do people buy their music from there. Glad there will still be some digital music around to have. If and when they do get rid of digital downloads someday, I imagine Apple Music would create a hybrid of Apple Music and iTunes in terms of user experience and features. We tend to think of things in the context of how they are NOW, but I think when and if the time comes, things will be less radical than they seem now. |
|
Au$tin
Diamond Member
Pop Culture Guru
Joined: August 2008
Posts: 54,539
My Charts
Pronouns: He/his/him
|
Post by Au$tin on May 25, 2016 17:55:49 GMT -5
Apple isn't stupid. They won't maintain two competing products for long. I give it 5 years max. They're not competing, though. Apple earns money from subscriptions, Apple earns money from downloads. If anything, it offers more options for their consumers, meaning more consumers. I agree with broccoli. If anything does happen, they'll eventually merge in an easier to access portal of some sort. Digital sales have actually plateaued a bit in their fall even as streaming continues to increase. There's not any reason right now for iTunes to terminate digital music sales. Not yet. |
|
bat1990
Diamond Member
Joined: July 2004
Posts: 12,971
Pronouns: he/him
|
Post by bat1990 on Jun 8, 2016 13:15:23 GMT -5
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Jun 9, 2016 9:35:35 GMT -5
In the meantime, a major iTunes 'redesign' is coming to bring iTunes and Apple Music more in harmony with each other. Sources say this will make it easier to turn off the paid downloads in the future without killing off the software altogether.
|
|
Mike
Platinum Member
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 1,695
|
Post by Mike on Jun 9, 2016 10:26:32 GMT -5
Now that would be a huge disapointment. I don't stream music. Tried it, didn't like it. I just don't understand why they would get rid of paid downloads and I don't want to have to pay a monthly subscription fee for the rest of my life even if that gives me access to all the music in the world.
|
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Jun 9, 2016 11:42:25 GMT -5
In that case, you would take your business to amazon or some other site.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: January 1970
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 9, 2016 12:27:57 GMT -5
Now that would be a huge disapointment. I don't stream music. Tried it, didn't like it. I just don't understand why they would get rid of paid downloads and I don't want to have to pay a monthly subscription fee for the rest of my life even if that gives me access to all the music in the world. Some might question your desire to pay $12 or so for one album when you can listen to any album at any time for less than one album purchase per month. However... we are in a transition and this is to be expected. People didn't want CDs when they first came out, either. It took a decade (arguably) to dethrone the cassette tape. And then many had ill feelings toward digital music and prefer their CDs - and many still do. Eventually certain options just stop existing (at least on any viable level), forcing a change in consumer habits and preferences. Streaming is still relatively new, and there is plenty of time for it to potentially and slowly kill the digital download. I'm a music collector. I still have about 2,200 CDs in boxes in my garage that I can't bear to get rid of because they represent a good 20+ years of collecting music in physical form (I stopped years ago now)... even though I have them all on my hard drives, and don't listen to CDs anymore. While I'm not letting go of my CDs, I have fully embraced digital music. Streaming is something I utilize in certain scenarios at this point (like at work) and I can see myself using it more and more as Apple finds more ways to personalize streaming and make it seem more like my own collection of music (without actually owning it). I don't mind the idea of paying monthly for streaming because right now I have to pay to store all my music anyway, whether it's external hard drives or cloud storage, or both. It's not cheap. There's also a risk factor when it comes to storage - so streaming has a lot of advantages. |
|
Gary
Diamond Member
Joined: January 2014
Posts: 45,662
|
Post by Gary on Jun 9, 2016 13:08:48 GMT -5
Now that would be a huge disapointment. I don't stream music. Tried it, didn't like it. I just don't understand why they would get rid of paid downloads and I don't want to have to pay a monthly subscription fee for the rest of my life even if that gives me access to all the music in the world. Some might question your desire to pay $12 or so for one album when you can listen to any album at any time for less than one album purchase per month. However... we are in a transition and this is to be expected. People didn't want CDs when they first came out, either. It took a decade (arguably) to dethrone the cassette tape. And then many had ill feelings toward digital music and prefer their CDs - and many still do. Eventually certain options just stop existing (at least on any viable level), forcing a change in consumer habits and preferences. Streaming is still relatively new, and there is plenty of time for it to potentially and slowly kill the digital download. I'm a music collector. I still have about 2,200 CDs in boxes in my garage that I can't bear to get rid of because they represent a good 20+ years of collecting music in physical form (I stopped years ago now)... even though I have them all on my hard drives, and don't listen to CDs anymore. While I'm not letting go of my CDs, I have fully embraced digital music. Streaming is something I utilize in certain scenarios at this point (like at work) and I can see myself using it more and more as Apple finds more ways to personalize streaming and make it seem more like my own collection of music (without actually owning it). I don't mind the idea of paying monthly for streaming because right now I have to pay to store all my music anyway, whether it's external hard drives or cloud storage, or both. It's not cheap. There's also a risk factor when it comes to storage - so streaming has a lot of advantages. Streaming has lots of disadvantages too. -You rent the music, you do not own it. With a purchase, you are buying a license for unlimited personal use. -The cost of streaming is a continuous ten dollars a month (not guaranteed to stay at that price either). The cost of an album download is a one-time fee of ten dollars. -Once you decide to abandon a monthly fee, your music will also go away. Your downloads will not (by themselves anyway) Downloads may eventually be pulled from itunes will not go away. Some other company will likely pick it up. CDs are still around, so is vinyl for that matter. |
|
