3 ms·

"Reminder: Apple uses music to make billions off hardware. Artists see nothing from this." - I have never seen the exact numbers but I assume a lot more people

"Reminder: Apple uses music to make billions off hardware. Artists see nothing from this." - I have never seen the exact numbers but I assume a lot more people have a portable music player with them at all times (iPod then iPhone) than they did a decade ago. I can only speak anecdotally but I buy more music because I know I'll have it with me at all times than I did in the portable CD/tape days.

josefresco 11y ago
The iPod was a success, but the iPhone and iPad were mega-super-success. Those devices were not about music, but apps, email and Internet. Apple certainly leveraged their success with the iPod but I don't buy that "Apple makes all it's money off hardware because of music" line.
mikeash 11y ago
I buy no music today, because I know I can stream it at any time. Even my parents use Pandora and Spotify instead of buying new stuff.
mrmondo 11y ago
I buy more music today than I ever have done in the past and having a decent portable media player (iPhone) has a lot to do with this. I actually buy 99% of my music from bandcamp which is a really great service that pays musicians quite well and has lossless downloads.
r00fus 11y ago
Music takes about 0.1% of my iPhone nominal usage... even when I'm doing other stuff. I use my iPhone for business and personal connectivity - taking calls, sharing webex, emails, SMS/imessages, etc. Once in a while I listen to music. It's great. However, I see no reason why artists of that music should get a piece of Apple's pie here.
protomyth 11y ago
Well, record player companies made money off of Artists without paying them. This is a basic secondary market (hell, parking garages make money off Artists) and has nothing to do with the direct making of money on music such as a subscription service or actual record sales. This argument has actually been used to tax blank CDs which is bull. Should we tax all parking lots when a game or Artists is playing near them? Taxing the ecosystem because some group determined their part of it is more important is foolish.

josefresco 11y ago

The iPod was a success, but the iPhone and iPad were mega-super-success. Those devices were not about music, but apps, email and Internet. Apple certainly leveraged their success with the iPod but I don't buy that "Apple makes all it's money off hardware because of music" line.

mikeash 11y ago

I buy no music today, because I know I can stream it at any time. Even my parents use Pandora and Spotify instead of buying new stuff.

mrmondo 11y ago

I buy more music today than I ever have done in the past and having a decent portable media player (iPhone) has a lot to do with this. I actually buy 99% of my music from bandcamp which is a really great service that pays musicians quite well and has lossless downloads.

r00fus 11y ago

Music takes about 0.1% of my iPhone nominal usage... even when I'm doing other stuff. I use my iPhone for business and personal connectivity - taking calls, sharing webex, emails, SMS/imessages, etc. Once in a while I listen to music. It's great. However, I see no reason why artists of that music should get a piece of Apple's pie here.

protomyth 11y ago

Well, record player companies made money off of Artists without paying them. This is a basic secondary market (hell, parking garages make money off Artists) and has nothing to do with the direct making of money on music such as a subscription service or actual record sales. This argument has actually been used to tax blank CDs which is bull. Should we tax all parking lots when a game or Artists is playing near them? Taxing the ecosystem because some group determined their part of it is more important is foolish.