I have an iPhone and in no way want to use Apple Music! Tried the free trial and carried on a for a few months, but I found the integration of my own music (granted this is not an issue for everyone) and Apple's music to be terrible and the UI blurgh and just nasty.Good read but only iPhone users really want to use Apple music.
Once Spotify add a Hi-def/MQA option I think Tidal could disappear, but seeing as only way to get bit-perfect playback via Android via quality external DAC (and with UAPP app) I hope it doesn't. External DAC users connected to phones is likely small in the grand scheme of things so who knows. At the £9.99 price if "money is king" then its Spotify every time.
I always come back to Spotify for ease of use and speed of operation. Spotify Connect is especially good. I've tried many of the others but never stopped my Spotify Premium sub which I've had for years now.
Amazon music unlimited is separate to amazon prime and it's benefits. However amazon prime includes a partial library music streaming service called prime music.Just a quick question, i have an Amazon prime account, does this include Amazon music or is that extra ?
It can't be downloaded to play offline though, which is a killer feature for most people, who take their music seriously.The elephant in the room is YouTube. It's huge, it has most music on it, and it's free. Quality counts for nothing when the cost is £0. Where I work most people listen to music all day and I'd say the split is about 50% YT and 50% Spotify.
I'm not a huge music guy but I do subscribe to Spotify. It's fine for my needs, but I'm exactly a very discerning music listener. Most of the music I listen to is old and is through headphones (Bose QC35). I used to listen to a lot of movie soundtracks too which would probably benefit from higher quality audio, but I do less of that now as to be frank virtually all modern movie soundtracks are garbage.
It can though. Several websites automate the process, eg. keepvid.comIt can't be downloaded to play offline though, which is a killer feature for most people, who take their music seriously.
Odd to relate, streaming services have resulted in me buying much, much more music. I can now listen to new artists, in my own time and deep dive their portfolios. When I find things I like, I more often than not seek it out on vinyl (or sometimes lossless or high res). Artists like Wild Beasts, My Baby, Heliocentrics and Public Service Broadcasting to name but a few are all ones I have purchased heavily having first encountered them on streaming services. I freely admit this is not 'normal' (although artists do see upswings in tour ticket sales from streaming) but it's how it works for me.I guess that is my point, once upon a time, going to buy an LP was ‘an event’ and it did mean something. Now music has been devalued to a certain degree, even though we access and use it more.
Unfortunately, it is a little more complicated than that. Assuming that FLAC on streaming services will be toward the upper end of compression rates, it still requires double the bandwidth to store and stream than 320kbps MP3. The issue is compounded by the vastness of the catalogue. Whereas Amazon can devote considerable resources into ensuring that The Grand Tour is good to go in the knowledge that it is the most popular thing on their video offering, no such bunching exists with audio which increases the strain on servers. It's perfectly possible they'd take the hit but be under no illusions, it would be a hit.Excellent article, great discussion.
I'm on Amazon Unlimited and really like it. What I'd like:
1 - The option of better quality. I don't see why this isn't there already. I can't imagine it's a space issue on Amazon's servers. And it'd be easy to structure prices to put off people who didn't really need it. Say mp3 for £10 a month, lossless for £12 or £13 ?
2 - More flexibility to download. Currently it's simply not possible to play my Amazon streamed music on my FiiO X3. Look Amazon, if I wanted to 'steal' this stuff I could. Just let me download everything I can stream for free.
3 - What about abroad? I do a lot of listening when I'm out and about (waking, public transport), but I spend a disproportionately large amount of time listening on the summer holidays. Why not introduce a 'fair usage' policy so I can stream in Spain or Greece?
When Netflix gives me access to the vast majority of films and tv released over the last 30 years in anywhere near that volume or quality I would agree. Fact is though the amount of material available at that quality is minute in comparison and you're still paying £10 for the privilege. (and no I'm not saying Netflix isn't worth it I'm just extending your comparison)Really? A tenner gets you a 4K Netflix sub - I think 20 quid a month is way over priced.
The reason why I see it as a rip off as that it is double the premium cost. Premium is what 320Kbps? Raw uncompressed CD is 1.4Mbps (but streaming is probably lossless compressed, so less). A full HD TV service is 5-8Mbps, a 4K TV service is at least 15Mbps. So - so 3x bandwidth adds a few quid a month - which is fine - it doesn't double it.When Netflix gives me access to the vast majority of films and tv released over the last 30 years in anywhere near that volume or quality I would agree. Fact is though the amount of material available at that quality is minute in comparison and you're still paying £10 for the privilege. (and no I'm not saying Netflix isn't worth it I'm just extending your comparison)
The catalogue size difference between *ANY* tv and music based service is VAST. I am not surprised none of them make money as I would suggest that a sub to any of the major streaming services will give most people access to most of the music they ever listen to. The same is no where near true for any of the TV streaming services at any quality or price.
Personally I find it quite staggering how cheap the music streaming services are at any price considering what you get. If I went back 30 or even 20 years and someone told me I could LEGALLY get access to the vast majority of English speaking popular music (not to mention world music, classical music and a lot or esoteric stuff) for £9.99 or extend that to the whole family for £15 I'd have laughed at them for being ridiculous. Yet here we are 20 years later with exactly that.
While I appreciate you might not see value in a £20 sub, calling it "way overpriced" in comparison to Netflix is a little silly.
Which is very good value for money (though I can't even stream 4k). I do prefer blurays, and will always buy a movie if it's something I really want to watch, but for general viewing and series it's worth it's weight in gold.Really? A tenner gets you a 4K Netflix sub - I think 20 quid a month is way over priced.