3 ms·
> ... it can be frustrating for consumers that no single outlet has everything. I'm not sure there's a better example of first world problems. I know this frus
by mathgeek 11y ago
> ... it can be frustrating for consumers that no single outlet has everything.
I'm not sure there's a better example of first world problems. I know this frustration as well, but for me it's a perfect reminder that maybe the ability to stream any song at any time isn't that big of a deal in the broader picture. One could say that the issue here is really corporate control of creative properties, but I'd wager that most people would be perfectly happy with someone like Apple controlling everything if it meant they could listen to any artist at any time.
- smacktoward 11y agoWell, yeah, but you could say that about anything. Having a machine to toast your bread isn't that big of a deal in the broader picture either, you know? But people buy lots of toasters, which means there will be plenty of toaster-industry people worrying whether the current toaster experience is optimal.
- branchless 11y agoNope. Prices would be dictated by them. Also I'm not convinced by this steady stream of "first world problem" laments. It's like your uncle saying "you're lucky you don't live in Africa" when you're a kid. Even if you got your hand cut off he'd pipe up "I saw a kid with no arms - happy as could be, quit your moaning!".
- mikestew 11y agoI'm not sure there's a better example of first world problems. You forgot to remind us how if we're not paying, we're the product and not the customer, and something something Betteridge. Now that we've gotten the obvious out of the way, let's move on. but I'd wager that most people would be perfectly happy with someone like Apple controlling everything if it meant they could listen to any artist at any time. I don't know if I'd be happy with it, as a single controlling entity can't end well, but my streaming habits work as if that were true: Apple Music is my sole paid streaming provider (though I listen to a few sources that are donation-only). I'm not "frustrated", but I'm not going to juggle more than that. Hence, it's probably worse on the artists than the listeners. Me, if it's not on Apple Music then I probably won't ever notice the difference. The artist, however, has to make sure they have all of the services covered.
- orbitur 11y ago> The artist, however, has to make sure they have all of the services covered. There are "middlemen" services that do exactly this for artists, but can still be cost-prohibitive for the really small-time acts. I'm in a minority who actually seek out these artists, and yes, it is incredibly frustrating that I pay for Apple Music, but for some of the bands I really care about, I need to open up the Bandcamp app, or the Soundcloud app. I always make sure to bug them on their Facebook pages to let them know their presence is missed on Apple Music. Although, I'm obviously more likely to pay for an album if I have to go through the Bandcamp gateway. Makes me feel good about myself, and gets actual money to the artists, so there are benefits compared to the streaming services' model of paying artists fractions of a cent per play.
- BEEdwards 11y agoI think we are the opposite, I have found nothing nothing but frustration in the apple music. Shitty interface, short samples, bloated as a three day dead whale AND proprietary. I however love bandcamp and soundcloud. They have changed the way I discover music. Not so much listen to music, that's still a download it and play it myself sort of thing.