Can Apple Win Back Music | Vulf Opinion
Vložit
- čas přidán 5. 08. 2024
- 00:00 Can Apple Win Music Back?
01:29 The Battle for Music
02:58 Spotify Won The Belt
03:17 Where Is The Next Disruption
05:46 The New Deal: A 90/10 Fan-Centric Model
09:13 Apple’s Not A Charity
10:02 Lunatic Needed
11:02 Closing Thoughts - Hudba
Hoomans, Stereo, 1957
This is what Steve Jobs's keynotes used to look like back in 1957
4:43
Chefs kiss
I saw your comment before starting the video and fully expected it to be a citation for a financial abstract or talk or something
I thought this was the specs on the lapel mic.
Im here for the 90/10 Fan Centric model.
CZcams has added tips and paid channel subscriptions to support creators. Podcasts can be monetized through Patreon and paid ad reads. Yet music streaming platforms allow none of that. It's like an unpaid internship for ‘exposure’.
If streaming services adopted a more fan-based subscription model, small and independent artists might become much more successful
@RhettShull @Vulf - I have supported a fancentric model since Spotify's inception, but the fancentric model is actually bad for most large artists/labels who get more money through a pro rata format because of endless streams in restaurants/bars/stores/playlists/etc, maybe next video expound upon how we could get the mass market to switch to Apple Music under this new model if only a tiny segment of small or indie artists switch and remove their content from Spotify, sacrificing their chance of exposure or discovery to an audience an order of magnitude larger, when any mid-large artist signed to a label that is backdoor placing them on playlists would not be financially incentivized to remove themselves from the Spotify platform.
@@danielard5574the problem that we’ve been dealing with for a long time is that everyone is worried for the big labels. They just spit out mid songs from big names and make money. But music is an art and that takes away from true artists. I get the labels basically run the streaming services but until we fix that we can’t fix anything
I appreciate what Daniel Lard said. With all the huffing and puffing about how AI will change everything, why can't streaming services monitor what kind of user a user is and then optimize the payment model based on that? Fan-centric for people with fan-listening habits, and a pro-rata for restaurants, bars, etc? It IS possible. Just monitor the data and charge accordingly.
There are other things that could be changed, too, to benefit artists and fans.
Is it time for a brainstorm? With artists and fans, instead of just business people and lawyers? Yes. I did say that! ;-)
Tone, delivery, aspect ratio, informed opinion, aspect ratio - big fan of this whole thing you've made here.
but which part did you like the most?
It’s probably an even ratio of aspects.
@@j_quyatthoomans… stereo.. 1957
@@jacksonlaframboise6257 wow this is a gem of a comment
My man Jack looks like a new person every two weeks and I’m here for it
I know right???
Goes from your average hippie to a young programmer who works at google in the span of a year
he just shaved it seems
But his godly cleft chin is here to stay for good
@@MylesRoachMusic that is true
“A lime green, Swedish prison!”
I’m dead 😂 Jack is incredible in so many ways and words.
Best single off the new album?!?
Brilliant
I agree. The model has to change and artists are waiting for something better. Thanks Prof. ❤
If Spotify had a Fan Centric model, more of my money would be going to bands like Vulfpeck instead of artists I don't care about. As a fan I'm, all for it.
I had never thought about the fact that each month when I stream songs most of my money is going to the most popular artists, it would be insane for me to stream exclusively Vulfpeck, Thundercat, and Moonchild for a month and have basically 1/3 of the streaming cost go to each of them.
may you explain this model to me? how does viewing the payment in this way change the overall payouts, wont the artists with the most listeners still get paid the most? how does this stop stream fraud?
@@tatealfrobinsonYour money goes to your artists.
The problem with per rata is that you listen to 5 Vulfmon songs a week but I listen to Rebecca Blacc remixes 24/7. I have 50 times your engagement. We both pay $10 but only 1/50th of those $20 go to Vulfmon, $19.60 go to the Rebecca Blacc remiccs artist.
Fan centric means no matter how hard I outstream you, it's $10 per artist.
I like how you jumped the 80-20 all the way to a 90-10. In a way it is a complete flip from the the music biz started. I agree that having a fan based model is awesome!
He coup de grace triple-dog-dared it.
@@GregsBassWorldhow does a person even comes up with such a sentence))))
I'm so happy the Fan Centric model is being expressed by people. Its a win win for everyone, companies get the same amount of revenue without streaming fraud taking cuts, artists earn more money from the fans that listen to them whether they are small or big. And fans are rewarded for supporting their favourite artists, and their money goes directly to who they want to support! why haven't streaming providers Tried it yet! Thank you for sharing this ❤
Yeah fan centric is just the right way to go.
but i really don't undestand why is apple the one to do it, encouranging them to use their monopolist position to get additional money from hardware or whatever else...
If apple could win it back from spotify and regain their position they wouldn't care about artists at all
2 ears 2 speakers.
may you explain this model to me? how does viewing the payment in this way change the overall payouts, wont the artists with the most listeners still get paid the most? how does this stop stream fraud?
@@tatealfrobinson it gets more people to subscribe if they know they'll support their favorite artists with their money instead of dua lipa
@@tatealfrobinson currently if you pay £10 for a subscription. The allowance of that that goes to paying artist royalties is all put into a big pit, and distributed to artist by how many 'streams they have'. It has nothing do do with each individual consumers listening habits. For instance. If you listened to your favourite band, and only your favourite band that month, 20times. They would be paid 20x 0.0023pence (or whatever the current royalty rate is). From this big royalty pot, and the rest of your money stays in the royalty pot to pay other artists royalties ( or atleast stays in Spotifys big pot of subscription royalty money). This means two things: 1. Your subscription money has little direct affect of supporting your favourite bands, that is just money used to pay the royalties of 'any' artist from the pot, i cluding artists you may never listen too, and 2. in some cases, fake artist accounts that put up whute noise tracks and trick the system to get royalties (fraud). Yes with a Fan Centric system, the biggest artists would still be paid the most, because they have a bigger fanbase directly supporting them. But this would Increase the money given to smaller underground artists, as the smaller fanbase's subscriptions would have a much larger royalty payout to their favourite artists, and ensure all of their subscription royalty portion goes to who they have listened to that month. I hope that makes sense?
That U2 line always got me.
This entire video just reminds me of that MBMBAM bit where Limp Bizkit open for a Apple press conference
czcams.com/video/dXFdrNoPgSU/video.html
Gimme somthing... I CAN FEEEELLLL
More Vulf Opinions please!!!!!!
Seriously
agreed.
Vulf > NYT
You bring up a good point about Apple being so artist-friendly...as I sit here on my Mac, mixing a new tune, checking our band stats on my iPhone, editing in iMovie...my wife is an ipod nano...
The fact that this video is uploaded in an aspect ratio that allows us to read comments while watching this masterful dissertation in its intended ratio is an innovation in itself
Wow!
What aspect ratio is it? Isnt it regular 16x9?
Nerds
Yes! I’ve been wanting a fan centric model for YEARS!!!
It’s just nice to hear Jack chat about this stuff: music,and music streaming at this is mostly about. I find that music streaming is getting diluted, I find myself missing “CD quality”. And I’m one of the oldies, that still obsess about the same album, over and over again. Thanks, Jack
streaming is lame, eternal playlists are lame. there's a lot to be said about listening to one cd at a time
On most streaming platforms you can get a higher quality audio file than would be on a CD
@@generalkenobi6869That's kind of a half-truth. People downloaded files and did tests from platforms like Tidal and found that the files, while upsampled, were actually just sourced from the distribution copies of the studio master at 44.1KHz, 16bit which is CD quality.
Also, since CDs use 44.1KHz, you literally cannot hear the difference of any samplerates higher than this so it would pointless even if they weren't faking it through upsampling.
The only time samplerate really matters beyond 44.1KHz is to more easily sync 48KHz to 24fps or to do some extreme time-stretching.
Listening to Jack talk about Apple winning back music with a 90/10 model, my brain started laying down “Give Life Back to Music” from Daft Punk’s Random Access Memories as a backing track
100% with this. I’ve thought this to be the most fair model for years. I’m someone who’s listens to more niche artists and I want my subscription to support those artists. The mega artists will still get their payday, but the smaller artists will be paid more equitably. When we bought physical LPs and CDs, that was a fan-centric model. Why should it be any different with streaming?
Oh wow, Jack's "the problem with Spotify" article writ large as a backyard keynote?! I always loved & cited that write-up & model, so this is weirdly a big & very satisfying day for me
I've always been a fan of the fan-centric model, but I didn't consider how it would disincentivize streaming fraud, love it!
While I’m totally onboard with fan centric subscriptions, it’s not super apparent to me how it disincentives streaming fraud, I wish he spent time explaining that than fanboying about Apple so much. My understanding of stream fraud is you post a song and get a bunch of fake streams on it from bot accounts. And that gets you your money, and it’s a very cheap way to launder money. But if fan centric model only pays the artists you listen to, won’t that just make it so bot accounts can send more of their subscription directly to their stream frauder? Fan centric seems like it would make money laundry through music streaming more profitable.
@@b42thomasThat's not what most people mean by streaming fraud. Streaming fraud is usually about getting a bunch of fake streams to make a profit. A fan centric model means a bot cannot produce a payout that's bigger than the cost. Money laundering through streams isn't something I've heard of, but with a fan centric model you go from making a profit to losing 10% so it wouldn't solve laundering, but it would make laundering less appealing.
@@b42thomas In Jack’s model, if you spend $1000 on bot accounts and play only your music, you make $900 back and Apple makes $100. You just lose 10%.
10% loss is absolutely nothing when compared with other laundering methods, to Thomas’ point.
Here’s my dumb question: If getting bots to stream your songs is so profitable, should more of us do it to try and force the streaming services’ hands? If spotify won’t even admit to streaming fraud being a problem, would the FBI (or other countries’ equivalents) even investigate? How many people would have to enter the scheme before it collapses?
@@nahometesfay1112 Benn Jordan made a video on money laundering through spotify czcams.com/video/et8R5i5UEjY/video.htmlsi=9JeEOsp3Nqge2mwr
I dig this opinion. Excited for more, Professor Stratton.
Stratton's musings on Apple and Spotify are pretty relevant, since Apple used "Back Pocket" in an ad a few years ago and Vulpeck did that whole "Sleepify" thing.
MORE VULFPINIONS
I’d throw money on tue table to watch a 2h conversation with vulf and Rick Beato
@@rafbassholy mountain reservoir dogs style 👌
I work for a company that distributes royalties for these streaming services and idk if this would work. It makes sense on on paper but if there's one thing I've learned it's that these companies don't want to do more work to pay artists more money.
So to clarify, if Apple Music costs $11 per month, and in a month Joe Dart streams Here We Go Jack 5 times and Teen Town 5 times, Vulfmon and Weather Report each get $4.95? And if Joe Dart doesn't stream anybody that month Apple gets all $11? That means fans are encouraged to listen to music more often, and artists just strive to have their fans listen to them more than other artists, thus encouraging writing songs people want to listen to multiple times. Insanely brilliant.
What about the song that you really really only want to, or have time to, listen to once? Y'know what I mean? Like, I love Close To The Edge by Yes, but that's like a 20-30 minute long song or something like that. Under what you said, would songs like that just inevitably make the artists less money, or could we find a way to remedy that?
@@taywimzYou can do it by listening time then Close to the Edge would get 10x the payout compared to a 3min song. Nebula uses a system like that
@taywimz Of course this model should count time and not single plays. So if you listen to one 25 minutes song by yes and five 5-minutes songs by other artists in a month, Yes would be getting half the revenue. Otherwise artists would start making 10 seconds songs
@@ichhassemyvideo Sounds like a decent fix to me!
Not sure I understood you correctly. But in any case, nobody’s getting $4.95 from 10 streams.
I absolutely love the 90/10- innovation.
More vulf opinions would be greatly appreciated Mr Vulfmon. Your insights are always refreshing to hear
Love your insight. Discovered Vulfpeck on the Sleepify scandal on the news. Love the music you guys create now.
it seems that the technology is already here-Spotify certainly knows exactly how much and when you’ve listened to tracks-which relegates the problem to convincing platform owners to take a 90/10 deal. that the tech is here but the business side isn’t means the latter is self-evidently the harder part; have you had any ideas for ways that fans could advocate for this model in a way that Apple et al would listen to?
If I remember correctly, CZcams premium operates on a fan centric model so its been tried before (quite successfully imo)
The thing people don't realize is that artists are using a distributor that puts their work on MULTIPLE platforms, many of which are earning them far more money than Spotify. It's not like Spotify has exclusivity clauses.
thank you for the low down- fluid, cogent and no fat. sincere gratitude, I'm all about it
This channel is my one stop shop for music, news, entertainment.
I really miss going into a music store and buy a CD or Vinyl.
music stores will most likely always exist. they’ll definitely be less common, but there will always be some market for physical media (similar to how bookstores are rarer but still exist because people like objects)
This can still be done today, you don't need to miss it anymore :)
I still do this sometimes and test listen the music on spotify/yt. I've found some insanely nice tunes on these trips with this method. You basically get a hand curated collection at every other record store that no algorithm could ever curate. Buy a record to show you're grateful and everybody's happy. I'll give ya one for the road: Hurricane Dorothy off of Hosono's Tropical Dandy. Take care!
you... you can still do that...
I love CDs, they're a great way to support the artist. That's fantastic, but I really like them because they've got great sound quality, they're very portable- could listen to them in the car or maybe on the bike or subway (depends how portable your CD player is), and they're typically like half the price of a vinyl. CDs are the ideal form of physical music.
P.S: CDs are for people who want to listen to music, vinyl records are for people who want other people to believe they listen to music. (Yea, liner notes are cool and all, but not $30 cool)
Totally agree with you, Jack. Love the Vulf Opinion segment!
Thats exactly what i've been thinking for a while!
And i think you need to divide the 90 percent according to the time you listened to each artist.
Then you dont need this weird 30s marker for the listen to count.
With this concept, smaller subgenres of music with enough dedicated listeners could support themselfs, and diversity could flourish! Fan centric, lets go!
never seen this man before. the cleft chin, the aspect ratio, and the voice with a great take HAS ME SUBBED
This might be surprisingly one of Jack's more serious videos but I love it.
Very interesting to hear your opinion on the current music business model. :)
father stratton at the pulpit
When you start to think about it, the spotify payment split is fucking insane
Thank you for the thoughtful analysis, Jack. The only thing you forgot was the purchase of Beats which should have also been a mark on the side of Apple
This is the best CZcams video I have ever seen and I've been here since Dani California baby
Thank you for existing jack
This guy should be on MSNBC addressing this matter.
Let's rock!
…only if it is your goal to target a market who’s viewers median age is 71 (Source: LA Times).
Really interesting to suggest using individual user data, rather than aggregating it all. I assume the person who would lose out on this deal is bigger artists. A really neat monetization strategy. With the growing force behind games as a service and making everything a subscription, really interesting time to be thinking about how different models affect artist payouts. Would love to see some math here!
I am currently trying to learn web languages to round out my skillset, so I may throw together a little test here to see what the rev share might actually look like for some artists under the current model and the 90/10 model.
Thanks Jack. I've been trying to figure out a more equitable solution for streaming for a while. I think you've touched on something interesting by saying that people want to support artists. Vulf has made a career out of community support. Maybe a giant can turn this into a win-win-win situation where each party (corp/artist/consumer) feels like they've won something out of the agreement. Staying tuned this decade to find out.
I always cheer for Coilette from Robonia during the Robot Olympics. 🚀
I love this idea, the sooner Spotify sinks the better
Thanks for using your platform to talk about this problem and offer a great solution!
Good analysis on the financial model on the supply side - I think you overlooked the upstream influence of social media in the modern music ecosystem. Also creators and artists post across all platforms, so consumers don’t need to switch. Some models (like Spotify) only work at huge scale because margins are so small. Apple isn’t going to win with a payment strategy to scale the platform supply.
You nailed it with the lack of “need” to switch. I think the critical aspect then is other features- where Spotify wins thanks to fun ideas like Wrapped.
Love the color grading
Spotify is struggling right now. They're not making a profit. Apple doesn't need to make any big changes to take down Spotify, they're content to just wait and watch.
The company maybe not but some individuals are.
Spotify is absolutely making a profit lol they wouldn't be in business otherwise.
@@pc_buildyb0i935 Just do your research. Spotify has only just started to not operate on a loss each quarter. In 2022 they made between -150 and -250 million each quarter.
Of course the company value was increasing all this time and is now around 40 billion. So that money didn't just disappear into the void.
"Swedish prison isn't that bad" - great video jack, as always, great thinking on the times
Fun fact, Tidal Music already does the fan-centric payment model :) Also, on the higher payment tier, a full 10% of your subscription goes directly to your most-listened artist of the month!
And I just unsubscribed from tidal because the app was garbage: The search was slow, the connectivity to devices was 50/50, and the catalogue was small. Spotify has won my subscription on those three points for me.
i think they shut it down
oh yeah look at that, TIL. Apparently that 10% cut for the top artist meant smaller artists got paid less overall.
I was also thinking, maybe Apple could succeed cuz it’s a larger platform, but this may be an indicator that fan-centric royalties may not be ALL you need to take the crown. It’s definitely a better system, but there’s so much more to a music service now - device syncing, collaborative playlists, social messaging/embedding, etc. I’d love to see a bigger platform try out fan-centrism, but idk if that’ll be enough.
@@Socrates_Nuts Fan centric won't work and it never will unfortunately. Music itself is a loss leader. Artists make money by monetizing on stuff outside of music. Especially the small ones. Taylor Swift make huge money with music still because big PAY HER to put her music on their platform. Spotify does that stuff all the time. Look at Joe Rogan's deal.
Excellent lecture
vulf opinion????? i love this idea.
Need to hear Woody's top 5 underrated bird species
This is actually a fantastic solution. Let's all set this in stone and not stop until this is implemented.
this is a great vid. super to tyhe point. i have had this opinion about itunes apple and spotify, what spotify has done and why i stoopped using itunes when it tried to get me to go apple music is the social aspect to sharing playlist and music in genral. i used to collect and orginize large discogrophies and took alot of pride in what i had but once i realized how bad all the audio files where and how easy spotify was and that it was all done for me baisically i swiched over. i have recently been getting HI RES files and re making my library in high quality digital files.
I feel like Americans love Apple but overestimate its popularity because of how ubiquitous the devices are over there, Spotify simple has a massive lead because its available everywhere and not locked to a Mac ecosystem.
You should definitely do more of this, Jack is well spoken and witty.
But Apple music isn’t locked to Apple’s products, which is a rare and awesome thing. The apps on Android and Windows are very nice and I use them daily, it’s a rare moment where they clearly have put a ton of energy and thought into other platforms
@@Arcadium1177 Ah ok, my mistake, maybe I'm thinking about an older time when it was locked? That is a good feature.
Jack’s business brain is one of best in the music biz.
Thanks a lot to share ideas Jack!
I'm musician too and think of this all the time.
Why don't U try to be the lunatic?
You have the good experience wiz your ZZZZZZalbum!
You're clever about all this!
Vulfpeck is a monster jam known everywhere in the world!
Try it! Let's go!
I'm with U like like all musicians in the world!
Snoop is with U.
You're the man!
Thank U
Really good points Jack. Hopefully people share this around
I love this idea.
Something I could see an issue with, if I set up an artist account and release a song or two, then let those play at night constantly, I'd effectively get a good chunk of my subscription fee back.
I wonder if a hybrid model would be enough to push them in the right direction and less risky for apple. If they do 90/10 they lose about 80% of their profit right at the start until they can hopefully convince people to make the switch.
I wonder if something like 30/30/30/10 would work. 30 to apple, 30 fan centric, 30 pro rata, 10 to me personally. This way apple still holds on to a bigger portion of their current profits, smaller artists get a much bigger piece of the pie, the system can't be taken advantage of, and I could finally afford to put a down payment on a house in Toronto.
I want in on that 10%
@FlowieFX Sorry I don't think apple or I would go for it
At the moment you can you can get a multiple of your fee back by doing this. Worst case you get 2 USD per 1000 streams. Upload a 2 minute long song, stream it 12 hours a day, that is 360 clicks a day. Repeat 30 times and you have over 20 USD. Obviously if you are bit smarter you can make it press skip after 30 seconds and run it 24 hours a day. And you can do the same with multiple accounts in parallel.
Note, this song will most likely get taken down at some point.@@Mibbzz
This is the man who is saving music. "If there was a subscription service for food..."
Omg I love this! Finally someone is entering the chat with a real achievable answer to the depressing musician eco system! Fan centric model! We wanna come home!I love it.
Nothing above a Friday Sermon from Vulf 😀
give me more vulf opinions I would like an entire broadcast
Robot olympics would be pretty dope though
Nah, humans in stereo all the way.
This needs global attention. God bless
Amen! Been saying the same thing about Spatial Audio as well. This is the future!
More of this please Mr. Vulf
I think the issue with this idea is that the users/fans don't *really* care that the artists don't make as much as they might (*might*) have done under the old model. You aren't changing the user experience by changing the way you pay their favourite artists - the only thing that really drives user engagement is the service you offer users.
Some people would sign up, in the same way as some people choose to shop ethically but not enough people to really make an impact on an industry. I'd even say maybe most people in this comment section would be interested, but I don't think that's a representative enough sample to signal the kind of disruption discussed in the video.
Edit: that isn't a judgment on the fans. I'm a musician, I'm currently making far far far more monthly, a life-changing amount frankly, from streaming than I ever did from selling CDs or even selling digital downloads. I never would have found my fans without Spotify making it easy to access my music.
Yeah I agree. Spotify is known for its tailored recommendations, it can be used on apple and android, the PC app is quite good and everyone already uses it.
I would sign up for a 90/10 streaming service in a heart beat.
@@krsp420oh yeah, sorry I was generalising. Some people would, in the same way as some people will shop ethically but not enough people to really make an impact on an industry.
Couldn't disagree with this statement more. I haven't paid for a music sub for a couple of years now, but if apple made a pro-musician & fan choice like this, I would sign up. Partly just to support the change I want to see in the world. Mostly because I can know the majority of the profit is going to thepeople who put in the work.
also, having finished the video properly, the "musicians want to come home" angle is... uh, it sure is something. Apple succeeded in forming an emotional attachment through branding here I guess haha
In my public speaking course in college back in 2014, my speech was exactly this. Not the Apple stuff, but how the model doesn’t serve artists and it’s setup that way because that’s the deal labels cut out when streaming services started.
What’s interesting now with labels is I get the sense they are going to make themselves obsolete. I’m hearing more often that in order for artists to sign with labels they need to already have a following or some online presence. There two problems with, internet fame is fleeting for most people who go viral so it’s not the best signal for if an artist will be worth an investment. Second, once everyone realizes they need to build an online presence and they learn how to do it, they don’t need a label.
Labels provide three major things for an artist. Production costs of the music. Marketing, to inform people the music exists. Distribution, to get music in front of them. There’s a bunch of other things they do like they might be involved in touring and you could argue that what label really provides is access to the higher echelons of the music industry to get them connected to the right people for concert tours and tv spots and sync licensing.
Production costs have been drastically reduced now that DAWs and sample packs and plugins allow more people access to new sounds and styles they can create on their own.
Distrubition has been a fixed cost since iTunes. It doesn’t cost you any extra time or money for more people to download/stream an audio file vs the costs it would take to press and distribute physical products to people. And even the physical stuff has gotten easier for artists to work directly physical media production and distribution.
Now we are in a phase where artists are expected to be able market themselves before they signed, so why do you need to someone else to do your marketing. Just post consistently and follow the right trends to win the algorithm game. I’d even argue labels don’t know how to market organically to gain loyal fan bases. And if you do it right you won’t need a label to fund you because you’ve already got a following that doesn’t need to be super big to earn money.
So once labels make themselves obsolete, any new streaming platform that gains a critical mass to spark a mass migration will take over. I think this is something that will have to take some time and the platform will need to find the right ratio of listeners to artists to create enough “success” stories to start the gold rush.
Another factor in all this is the number of people there are who create art is becoming so saturated that I think there will less and less “bigger” artists with dedicated fans and more smaller artists who find their niche. and fans will start focusing more on supporting a scene, either local or online. It’ll be like sports, there’ll be a few top players but fans mostly support their team.
Outside of the payment model, another way Apple can differentiate themselves is by offering direct uploading to Apple Music. This removes the barrier to entry completely. Could end up with a lot of artists who may only upload certain albums/tracks to Apple (since most small artists aren't making money from the streams anyways).
Love the first 10 seconds of this opinion
also imagine if apple went all in on being the place to support your favorite artists, special merch, or imagine if they decided to help artists sell vinyl which is not something spotify does.
you mean like bandcamp?
@@stanvanillo9831 kinda. We all know bandcamp is sorta dying though, given how it recently got sold and how the new owner fired a ton of staff and is probably looking to “trim the fat”.
Seems to me like Apple is in a good spot to take advantage of the fact that there isn’t a major streaming service (meaning one that has as much music as Apple Music/Spotify) that really feels tailored for the unique relationship between artists and fans.
Solid commentary here. Good work.
Deezer (a streaming platform that is very famous in France) changed their model to UCPS which is exactly what you are proposing with the fan-centric approach. Though they're probably not splitting 90:10.
I’ve always thought too Spotify or Apple would do great to have a “pay what you like” option on an artist page too, like a Patreon type system built into the model. You could even have artist put up exclusive songs or demos or something to reward their fans willing to invest in them.
Yeah, but if Apple run the music, I'd be afraid they would use their signature move of limiting compatibility to non-Apple products. I'm not saying Spotify is better, but we've seen time and time again how bad a two party system works. Let's not rule out the possibility of someone else doing it.
I'd be willing for this to happen. I think it ultimately would result in more musician working in their field. But I'm open to debate on the subject.
I do not own Apple hardware and never will. I expect my subscription to run on any piece of hardware I happen to have at any moment in time without any limitations. So far spotify runs on Android, Windows and Linux. Tried Apple music on a Linux System via web browser. Not even Apple helpline could tell me if they were giving me full quality or not. Don´t need such service.
You’re the minority.
Bandcamp🤞🏽
@@LucasJRice no he is not
Not everyone is living in america lol
thank you, Jack! fingers crossed.
Wait but this makes perfect sense and would be brilliant in how it plays out holy shit
Jack, your insights are as profound as a cheese sandwich in a tech convention. Remember, the real secret is not in the music, maps, or insults, it's in the harmonious symphony of goats yodeling at midnight. Keep decoding the universe, one iPod shuffle at a time. #GoatYodelForChange 🐐🎶
Love the fan-centric thinking, but it's sad to me that Apple "needs" to be the winner. I hope it's a new player, or at least a new product.
Why?
@@MonkeyLikesLiveMusic Because strong competition drives improvement for consumers.
In response, why does Apple need to be the winner again? What makes them unassailably superior?
This is actually very well done. Well spoken with some great ideas, lets hope apple listen!
I switched from Spotify to Apple a couple years ago when I got my HomePods and I love it, but all I want is the ability to put albums into folders and it drives me insane that neither Apple or Spotify let you do that.
As an Apple Music Vulf listener, I'm here for it
Also in the 1 in 10 group!
I've always thought that shuffling was the weakest part of any music streaming service. They still haven't managed to replicate the feel of (at least old) radio, where songs actually have some tonal continuity as the next track comes on.
The reason I liked youtube (originally pirating music lol) as a platform was that the algorithm was accidentally really good at feeding up music that gelled well together because it was aggregating the thousands of personal playlist DJs that used it's platform. That's gone away nowadays with youtube music tbh, but i feel like improving the experience of listening to music still has a long way to go.
I agree but I also don’t think that that’s enough to win people over to switch platforms so they haven’t put much into that
For me it has been the contrary lately. I've been using youtube music ( google play music before that because I loath Spotify's UI/app) for about 8 years now and because it has so much of my listening data, the radio feature gives me some fantastic results these days. I know it's also probably informed by similar people's taste to mine too but in general it seems to be in a good place at the moment.
Spotify has a great algorithm tho. If you don't like it, skip. With every skip, your algorithm will improve.
@@Merthalophor I'll take your word for it haha I'd rather pay for youtube premium and get no ads + music.
@@jazovideo spotify premium is free if google for it
Additionally there needs to be a way to carry over Liked Songs and personal playlists from Spotify into Apple Music. Thats the main reason I haven’t switched to Apple yet - who wants to have to re-add every song they’ve enjoyed over the last 10 years from one platform to another. Let alone rebuilding all your playlists from scratch. Absolutely nobody has time for that
Deezer has moved toward this type of model. Great vid and hope Apple takes the thought and runs with it and other platforms follow suit. Would be amazing for artists and fans alike 🤘
What Tidal already does is giving 5€ straight to the artist you listened to the most per month.
Long live Tidal
apple is their own worst enemy
I would love a second channel with nothing but the thoughts / opinions of vulfmon.
That’s genius. I love the idea of 90-10 Fan centric!
Get this man on CNBC
love that spirit! that's truly putting up a fight for every artist and every fan to accomplish the utmost ambitious objective; the transcendency of the "creative capital" as an asset.
Always Pure Gold Jack!!
oh my god do a behind the scenes of the editing process, color grading, and camera setup it's beautiful
Thank you. This needs to get the attention of everyone
Looks like a 16mm news report from the 70s. I love it xD
I love a few Japanese musicians (Shiina Ringo, in particular) and I buy CDs and blu-rays still. Have you seen the record stores over there? They've got special displays for artists' new releases where their new album is put alongside all their old ones, a wall of CDs like in the old says, and they even have hand-drawn little signs and all sorts stuck everywhere. I like it.
Amen. I paid for Tidal HiFi because they started giving $1 of your subscription fee directly to the artist you streamed the most each month.
I didn't know this! Pretty cool!