 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
107.142.146.197
In Reply to: RE: From the outset posted by Whell on May 28, 2024 at 11:26:42
Except its niche marketing.
If you consider Apple Music with its support up to 192/24 a niche player, so be it!
Follow Ups:
How many PAID subscribers does Apple Music have? No one knows because Apple doesn't release those numbers. Apple does a fine job of giving its product away for 3 months or 6 months. Estimates are that they have about 78 million paid subscribers. Sounds like a good number.
Now how many of those subscribers typically listen on the Apple product that their free subscription came with? Their iPhone? Maybe through their ear buds? Who knows? Apple doesn't release those numbers either.
However, I'd wager that most of those 78 mil are like my daughters. Their weapon of choice is Spotify. But their listening habits, like most folks, don't involve the need or even the desire to stream at even CD quality to enjoy their music.
So, yeah, hi res music is a niche market.
How many PAID subscribers does Apple Music have? No one knows because Apple doesn't release those numbers
Yep, the have a lot of subscribers, but my question was how many PAID subscribers do they have. Paid, as in parting with hard earned dollars to maintain access.
Best I could find - because as I stated earlier, Apple and other streaming services are circumspect about releasing their subscriber data - is this info, indirectly from the Financial Times: https://www.idownloadblog.com/2018/11/30/apple-music-56-million-subscribers/
This info suggests the PAID subscribers are far less than the claimed subscribers.
But, that's not even the point. The point is that Spotify, with their MP3 stream - is still the global leader in paid subscribers. Couple that with the fact that Apple, Tidal, Amazon, etc., don't release specific data about how many folks are streaming in low resolution versus higher resolution, and yeah, high res is still a niche product.
Lossy Spotify is more expensive than Qobuz Studio.
I'll take the 24 bit master instead. :)
Now you're venturing into the realm of subjectivism. Qubuz is more expensive than Tidal or Apple Music, and some prefer those services over Qubuz.
Of course, those that are expressing those preferences are members of the niche market that Spotify doesn't cater to at present.
Qubuz is more expensive than Tidal or Apple Music, and some prefer those services over Qubuz.
First of all, the product is Qobuz not Qubuz.
You're mistaken when it comes to yearly plans:
Of course, those that are expressing those preferences are members of the niche market that Spotify doesn't cater to at present.
Exactly! For those who don't care about sound quality, go for Spotify. ;)
First of all, thank you for the spelling correction.
Second, while you were correcting my spelling, you missed my statement entirely. I stated:
"Qubuz is more expensive than Tidal or Apple Music, and some prefer those services over Qubuz."
You then posted a screenshot of SPOTIFY pricing, compared to - I'm assuming - Qobuz. Why, I don't know.
Bye now.
Why, I don't know.
$10.83 <$11.99.
I've often wondered how tiny Qobuz is able to provide the service and get the hi-res recordings.
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
