Members Anderton Posted September 16, 2014 Members Share Posted September 16, 2014 U2's new album was added free to 500,000,000 iTunes accounts. 33,000,000 have downloaded or streamed it...about 7%... Some folks didn't want it taking up space and complained, so Apple had to make a removal tool available so people could get rid of it. I think it was a nice gesture on Apple's part - "Here, have a free album!" - but I think it sends a pretty strong message about U2's current viability in the market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 16, 2014 Members Share Posted September 16, 2014 I thought it odd they would automatically download it to people's accounts. Why not just give people to option to download it for free if they wanted it? As far as their viability in the market? Well, they are a band that's been around for 35+ years whose last album 5 years ago sold 5 million copies worldwide. If 33 million actually want their album---even for free--that's still probably pretty strong all things considered. Personally, I've got the download but haven't got around to listening to it yet. "New U2 music" isn't something that is particularly motivating me these days. In the current climate, I would think a new U2 album would be worth maybe 2 million sales/paid downloads worldwide, and that's if they managed to have some sort of an actual hit off it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Ernest Buckley Posted September 16, 2014 Members Share Posted September 16, 2014 If there is one band in September of 2014 that can still sell CDs, I would say its U2. They may be the largest band in the world still and I think their following borders on religious obsession so I would venture to say that many of their fan base would still buy the entire record. Apple and U2 were using each other; Apple to launch their new iPhone 6 and U2 to launch their record. I think it works for both of them. I don`t know if its true but I heard U2 was paid $100,000.000 by Apple for this campaign. I mean thats some serious $$$ if its true. As much as I love U2, I would rather have seen Apple give this sort of attention to 12 new artists. Have 12 different commercials selling the iPhone6 with the music from 12 different artists. At least that way each band gets some attention and Apple looks like a supporter of the arts… Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 16, 2014 Members Share Posted September 16, 2014 As much as I love U2, I would rather have seen Apple give this sort of attention to 12 new artists. Have 12 different commercials selling the iPhone6 with the music from 12 different artists. At least that way each band gets some attention and Apple looks like a supporter of the arts… That and....if you're going to do this with one band----why U2? Apple is already in the position right now of playing catch up with their new phone releases and trying to maintain their reputation of being cutting-edge and leading the technology industries. Right now they risk being seen as the phone your dad uses. So they do this with a band that has so little appeal to anyone under 30? So this is part of their strategy to remain relevant and hip in the Post-Jobs era? "We're the phone for U2 fans"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted September 16, 2014 Members Share Posted September 16, 2014 it was in the CLOUD NOT IN PEOPLE'S ACCOUNTS...Idiots...Seriously. The people I mean. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 16, 2014 Author Members Share Posted September 16, 2014 it was in the CLOUD NOT IN PEOPLE'S ACCOUNTS...Idiots...Seriously. The people I mean. http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29208540 From the stories I've read from the BBC and others, some users complained because it had been downloaded automatically to their phones or computers without permission. Others complained not so much because the music was on their phone, but because they didn't really like being reminded that Apple can screw with their phones any time they want. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted September 16, 2014 Members Share Posted September 16, 2014 I was initially thinking people were being too hard on Apple -- but as I read more and more people's complaints, I realized that it really was a serious misjudgment pushing the DL out to users. A 'violation' of their space, even, as more than a couple suggested. Many who have to pay for metered or tiered data are NOT going to like someone pushing a presumably 50 or 60 MB file over their paid-per data mobile network data channel. And on the other... never a fan of U2, myself, I was nonetheless taken aback by just how far their once glittery star has sunk. BTW, one thing I didn't notice mentioned in stories of the long relationship between Apple and U2 -- wasn't Apple the sponsor of the Us Festival that seemingly helped cement the Irish band's place in the then-cloudy rock firmament? EDIT: No, it wasn't Apple, but, rather Steve Wozniak, hence the festival's Scientology connection, I guess. Though Wozniak apparently said in 1982 that he was not a Scientologist and does not appear to be. Nonetheless, Scientology had booths there and a high profile at the event and was associated with it at the time in the popular media. (Just so we're clear, from what little I know of Wozniak, I kind of like him.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 16, 2014 Members Share Posted September 16, 2014 And on the other... never a fan of U2, myself, I was nonetheless taken aback by just how far their once glittery star has sunk. I'm surprised so many people are surprised. Especially in terms of people being interested in their new music. Remember, this is a band who had their first album released in 1980. That was 34 years ago. That makes this pretty much the equivalent of giving away a free Frank Sinatra album with every purchase of a ticket to go see Star Wars in 1977. Like Sinatra in the late 70s, I have no doubt U2's star still has plenty of glitter for those of a certain age/social demographic. Like Sinatra, they might have even have one more late career hit or two left in them like Sinatra did with "New York, New York" around 1980. Just not so sure Apple put 2+2 together here from a marketing standpoint. 53 year old Tim Cook is no doubt a big fan of the band though.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members UstadKhanAli Posted September 16, 2014 Members Share Posted September 16, 2014 I had to download it. It was not automatically shoved into my account. YMMV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-29208540 From the stories I've read from the BBC and others, some users complained because it had been downloaded automatically to their phones or computers without permission. Others complained not so much because the music was on their phone, but because they didn't really like being reminded that Apple can screw with their phones any time they want. They are OF COURSE Mistaken. It shows up there but only in the Cloud..i.e. it has a big cloud next to the album. If you click it, it will download to your computer or device. If now it will remain in the cloud. Again. IDIOTS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 17, 2014 Author Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 They are OF COURSE Mistaken. It shows up there but only in the Cloud..i.e. it has a big cloud next to the album. If you click it, it will download to your computer or device. If now it will remain in the cloud. Again. IDIOTS! Not necessarily, it depends on the settings. Many users have accounts set up to download any purchased music to the associated device automatically. Those people found the album already downloaded, and taking up memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 17, 2014 Author Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 More into... Unfortunately, instead of just offering customers the option to download the album for free, Apple went ahead and gave it to them without asking. The album was dropped into the 500 million active iCloud accounts in 119 countries. The people who have their iTunes account set up to automatically download any purchases saw the files on their computers and mobile devices. Many complained that the way the album was distributed was invasive. It also came off as tone-deaf, since it happened so soon after iCloud's security was scrutinized for its part in high-profile celebrity photo hacks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members sventvkg Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 I stand corrected on the reason but not my statement! So you have your iTunes set for auto download then you complain when you get something for free when it was your fault you automatically got it???? FAIL FAIL FAIL Idiots! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members AlamoJoe Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 Yet another reason the only thing I own with an Apple Logo on it is some Beatles, Ex-Beatles and James Taylor records.Apple.....Google will end up owning them...You heard it here first...Then Google will be the Great Satan... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 17, 2014 Author Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 I stand corrected on the reason but not my statement! So you have your iTunes set for auto download then you complain when you get something for free when it was your fault you automatically got it???? FAIL FAIL FAIL Idiots! You're still missing the point. People set it to download THINGS THEY BOUGHT. They had control over what was downloaded. I don't think any of them thought it was a supposed to be a back door for Apple's unrestricted access to promote a corporate-centric agenda. Apple took control from the user in a context where they thought they had control over their own space; that's what they didn't like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goober(s) Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 add me to the column of people who do NOT want a free album pushed to his iTunes account. especially boring U2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 U2's new album was added free to 500,000,000 iTunes accounts. 33,000,000 have downloaded or streamed it...about 7%... Some folks didn't want it taking up space and complained, so Apple had to make a removal tool available so people could get rid of it. I think it was a nice gesture on Apple's part - "Here, have a free album!" - but I think it sends a pretty strong message about U2's current viability in the market. I'm not sure what strong message you have in mind—a negative or positive one. (The word "but" leads me to guess negative though.) Thirty-three million is a Thriller ballpark number. Granted, that interest is much easier to generate as a freebie, so I wouldn't compare the two accomplishments on any other level; but it's still a whopping number! Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phil O'Keefe Posted September 17, 2014 Share Posted September 17, 2014 Yes, 33 million is an incredible amount, but I think Thriller did a bit more than that - the numbers I've heard range anywhere from about 48 million to nearly 100 million world-wide. As you said, those were sales, not the number (out of the half a billion it was sent to for free) who bothered to access it via free downloads or streams. How many of those people would have purchased it? We'll never know for certain, although we'll be able to see how the album sells after the free period is over, which may give us some further insights. But IMHO, the number of people who purchase something - the old benchmarks of gold and platinum records - are becoming less relevant all the time - it's the number of people who stream a song - the number of plays - that will be important in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Goober(s) Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 i really don't get why U2 is as popular as it is. it seems formulaic and boring to me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Anderton Posted September 17, 2014 Author Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 I'm not sure what strong message you have in mind—a negative or positive one. (The word "but" leads me to guess negative though.) Thirty-three million is a Thriller ballpark number. Granted, that interest is much easier to generate as a freebie, so I wouldn't compare the two accomplishments on any other level; but it's still a whopping number! Best, Geoff Over their career, U2 has done some music I really like.. I like the way Edge supported Music Rising and the way he uses delay to maximize what he does. So I'll probably download the album and see if there are one or two cuts I like, but I wouldn't have bought it. I listened to the Joey Ramone cut and stopped after a minute or so, it just didn't hold my interest. uAt least to me, there's an aura of pretense around the band I don't particularly care for. I don't know how you can do a calculated move to be "innocent," for example. Compare U2 to David Bowie's "Pinups," which was a tribute to the music he grew up with. With Bowie, it was all about those songs. With U2, it's all about them. Sure, 33MM is a lot. But if 93% of the people who get the offer for a free U2 album can't be bothered to listen to it, let alone download it, that doesn't seem to bode well. I think Guido nailed it when he said he figured it would have sold 2MM copies in the real world. Again, it's not like I have some huge problem with it given the scale of problems in this world, but it sure was a misfire, especially coming so soon after the iCloud security breaches. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members blue2blue Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 Yes, 33 million is an incredible amount, but I think Thriller did a bit more than that - the numbers I've heard range anywhere from about 48 million to nearly 100 million world-wide. As you said, those were sales, not the number (out of the half a billion it was sent to for free) who bothered to access it via free downloads or streams. How many of those people would have purchased it? We'll never know for certain, although we'll be able to see how the album sells after the free period is over, which may give us some further insights. But IMHO, the number of people who purchase something - the old benchmarks of gold and platinum records - are becoming less relevant all the time - it's the number of people who stream a song - the number of plays - that will be important in the future. [bold added] This is clearly the major sea change we're looking at, seems to me. As I've noted in the past, I've been using subscription streaming for about a decade and have subscribed to 5 services (and done a couple extended trials of one other). As both a musician and a consumer, I'm very comfortable with it. BUT it does require a major change in attitude and, perhaps, strategy. The goal is no longer to coax, cajole, trick or seduce the listener into making a one-time, full-money commitment to owning a copy of a given track or album for a one time payment (of which the artist of the old system would traditionally only a s small slice). Now, the challenge is to create music that people will want to continue to listen to. Before, as soon as you sold a single or an album, as far as money went, your music's work was done. If people bought the record and never listened again, no skin off the artists' teeth -- at least until it's time to get consumers line up for the next release. But then, just think about how many times you've heard people say, The last album was kind of disappointing but I'm really looking forward to the next one...? That's pretty much out the window with the subscription streaming model. You listen to what you like, and what gets listened to more generates more income to the artist/label. (And the promotional/marketing role of labels becomes ever more clear-cut under this model.) The consequences may not always be comfortable to consider. 'Prestige' projects and 'cornerstone' records that 'everyone should have' -- but few listen to -- will receive less money. And, perhaps sadly, the woefully, wildly popular pop claptrap that gets hundreds of millions of listens (at least for a month or two) will be rewarded concomitantly. But they're getting the plays. People are listening. Presumably enjoying. Fair is fair. Still, that process seems to -- as long as money can quasi-legally buy airplay and 'TV' exposure [and in the US, the FCC seems, administration after administration, ever cozier and more eagerly compliant with mega-corporate wishes] Let's face it, as we all know, wealth/money/power are snowballs. They get bigger as they roll along. Which is one reason why well-functioning economic systems with relative equilibrium over time tend to need to have ways of slowing the accumulation of wealth by the few at the expense of the many. And systems that don't have equilibrium -- as we've seen disastrously so many times in the past -- descend into wild, market-destructive oscillations or dystopic spirals. But it seems clearly too early to get a big picture view of what will happen as the new model becomes increasingly prevalent. How much will old trends hold? What new systems and practices will evolve? How will consumers react over time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Dendy Jarrett Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 There are a couple of things that come to mind when reading through this thread:1) The Music Industry has been in this extreme state of limbo since the advent of the sony walkman (if we are being honest).I don't think it is any closer to finding its legs. Where the big breakdown came was in the 90s when Napster and other file sharing services started. This was the big shake up. It is sad that it is still an ongoing struggle. If you go down Music Row in Nashville, there are more vacant buildings that occupied2) I am sad for the aspiring musician or music lover who will never understand the magic of sitting with an album and viewing all the pictures and side notes regarding the album and the making of the album. There was something simply magical about that experience.3) We have become an on-demand society. You no longer must wait for your favorite song to come onto the radio (stereo). Today's generation have lost that great anticipation of waiting to hear the song (thus loosing some of the appreciation of the music).4) And finally, today's generation is lacking in the ability to sit and enjoy music. Because they have this "on demand" ability, but also have multiple media capabilities in the palm of their hand, they miss just sitting with an album on a turn table taking in (unobstructed) all the subtle nuances of the music. Perhaps it is just the old fuddy in me that makes me think this way, but I am witnessing it in my own kids. D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Geoff Grace Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 According to Wikipedia, Thriller sold fifteen million copies during 1983 after its release in late 1982. (I realize it sold much more than that in the decades that followed, but we don't have a decades long sampling of this U2 release yet.) I think it's safe to say that at least a half billion people were aware of the album at the time and most of them decided not to buy. In my opinion, that's no slam on Michael Jackson; it's an example that even the most successful album of all time didn't appeal to most of the buying public and a reminder that every release faces more rejection than acceptance. In that light, I still think U2's 33 million is a whopping number, and who knows what it will grow to over time? My wife wasn't even aware she had been given a free copy by Apple, so obviously word has yet to spread to everyone on their list. As to whether or not U2 would have sold two million without Apple's help, that's a tough call. On the one hand, streaming is quickly eroding album sales; but on the other hand, their last album sold over five million copies (again, according to Wikipedia). Best, Geoff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 There are a couple of things that come to mind when reading through this thread: 1) The Music Industry has been in this extreme state of limbo since the advent of the sony walkman (if we are being honest). Well, actually the music industry peaked AFTER that. Music sales skyrocketed after the invention of the CD, and the best year for music sales was 1999. So it's really only been the last 15 years that it has been in decline. Although it has been rapid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Members Vito Corleone Posted September 17, 2014 Members Share Posted September 17, 2014 'Prestige' projects and 'cornerstone' records that 'everyone should have' -- but few listen to -- will receive less money. And, perhaps sadly, the woefully, wildly popular pop claptrap that gets hundreds of millions of listens (at least for a month or two) will be rewarded concomitantly. But they're getting the plays. People are listening. Presumably enjoying. Fair is fair. Yes, it's always been that way. "Art" projects have never made much money and certainly didn't prior to the album era. The stuff that sold is the stuff that made the money. The trick for musicians (and any artist) is to figure out a way to mix art with commerce. It's actually pretty easy to create a record or a movie or a book or a painting that goes over people's heads and nobody really wants to spend time/money on. But that a few people "understand". That stuff is mostly just an exercise in self-indulgence. The real skill (IMO anyway) is creating something of depth and substance that still connects with the average Joe. There's a reason why most "Best Of" lists are always filled with things that were both artistic AND popular. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.