Apple re-drops Beats Music as remodeled Apple Music. Better luck this time, Apple…

When Beats bought MOG in 2012, that beloved-but-undersubscribed music service had 500 thousand subscribers. Six months after Apple bought Beats, touting their stream service as ‘the future of music’ — at the end of 2014 — Beats was down to just 303 thousand subscribers.

We’d like to think Apple’s remake will reverse fortunes like it reversed the dorky gamer-black Beats UI for a ‘gleaming’ white v-bezel — but for some reason known only to those on iOlympus, Apple put the very same people responsible for Beats Music’s dismal product and worse sales in charge of the iTunes/Apple Music reincarnation.

Interesting times.

 

Wired‘s breathless coverage (they do love them their Apple) gets the main points — and has a certain, not unamusing announcing-sliced-bread sort of vibe…

WIRED: Everything You Need to Know About Apple Music

Is Big Music trying to re-fight battles it’s already lost?

As Universal and Sony gear up to try a dual front attack on Spotify and other ‘freemium’ music streams services, some industry observers think Big Music is just heading back into another bruising fight over money and control over public access to music and the music industries access to the public.

Some indie musicians find themselves increasingly sympathetic to the enhanced discovery options that flow from such ‘freemium’ business models that let interested consumers discover music outside the heavy promotion the old line industry must use to continue selling its cookie-cutter product to pliant consumers.

Quartz: The music industry wants to fight the internet again—and it’s probably going to lose

Universal pressures Spotify to restrict ad-driven ‘free’ music service

The world’s largest music conglomerate, Universal, is trying to pressure Spotify to limit advertising-paid on-demand music streaming — despite the fact that Spotify is the most successful streaming company at signing subscribers and counts its fee-less ad-driven tier as an important pathway to later subscription.

Is Universal, perhaps quite reasonably, concerned with Spot’s relatively low per-stream rate (vis a vis other providers like Google All Access, Rdio, Beats, et al) or are they more concerned that increased ‘free’ discovery benefits smaller artists not on promo-rich labels like the Universal stable of labels — undercutting the huge promotional outlays it takes to get music lovers to listen to the ‘hits’ picked by Universal A&R?

Spotify originally limited their ad-driven ‘free’ tier with a 10 hour/month overall limit and a maximum of 5 streams of any specific song but later relaxed that, apparently trying to lure in more stream-skeptics. Restrictions remained in some markets but in the US and a few others, they were largely dropped.

No one’s asking me (really, they aren’t), but I can’t help but feel the free, ad-driven tier of Spotify is an excellent resource — EVEN though I subscribe to another service I find superior (Google All Access) — because it allows one to ‘share’ the discovery of music with others who may not have a subscription service.

But that function would remain largely intact if Spot were to return to something like their earlier free-tier restrictions, it seems to me.

One thing certain elements in the music industry are edgy about: the 10 dollars or so a month that Spot, Google, Beats, et al, charge for their subscription services is roughly TWICE what average consumers spend on music a month.

The Independent: Spotify reportedly under pressure from music labels to limit free streaming