There are a lot of economic differences between music and apps
Are there? (At least for independent musicians?) From my experience, it seems like a decent comparison—you can make an app or album for $2000 or $200k.
- Different pricing. Apps can be anywhere from $1 to $500, while songs typically hover around $0.99. The wide variance in app pricing makes a subscription model challenging to satisfy all users and developers.
- Different markets. When you make an app, you're tying it to be used on a specific platform. It is additional work to make it cross-platform. That alone is limiting for an apps' market, and in the case of iOS, the platform's owner can impose additional limits. Music is open-ish in the sense that you can make music once and release it in a way that it's playable, essentially, everywhere.
- Different revenue streams. Music is a digital good like apps, but it's also a physical good (CDs, records) and most importantly it's a service (live performances). It's possible to have additional revenue streams with apps, but it's not as common as it is with music. If Apple spontaneously created an app subscription model and your app was iOS only, you would suddenly be very locked into that business model, whereas with music you will always have additional options.
You're missing the biggest difference: longevity. An album can sell for 50+ years whereas an app... well, let's just say it's one step above "ephemeral".
All the more reason app developers shouldn't/wouldn't go for such a deal.
This is slightly off topic, but it seems that iTunes song prices have silently increased to $1.29, which is a huge increase. There are still some $0.99 songs out there, but most of the tracks I buy are $1.29.
Seriously though, here in Australia the regular price for a track is $2.19 -- which is absolutely ludicrous to be honest. As of today, that's the equivalent of $1.70USD
It seems like the more difficult barrier to this model is the technical difference between music and apps. In order for a piece of music to play in the background 24/7, the user has to pretty much explicitly allow it. In order for an app to do the same thing, the user just has to grant it enough permissions.
Yeah, but touring has a crazy pile of expenses associated, in addition to all the unfortunateness of being on the road for as long as you want to make money at it.
It's not that I'm unsympathetic to the artists, but I think that it's unrealistic that they'd expect otherwise.
A career in tech has a crazy pile of expenses associated (Stanford isn't giving away comp sci degrees; continuing education unless you want to end up a one-trick pony), in additional to all the unfortunateness of having to live in a hyper-expensive tech hub for as long as you want to make money at it.
Yeah, you can much cheaper degree (I did) and live in a cheaper region (I had), but that almost guarantees hitting a lower career ceiling than if you have a Berkeley diploma and live in San Jose.
Almost all careers involve tradeoffs. If you want to rise to the limits of your abilities you're going to have to make some hard decisions. Otherwise you'll be competing with the other workers who are happy to get paid less for easier work. In tech, this means a mid-range job in a small market. For musicians, this means playing gigs in Des Moines instead of clubs in LA. Them's the breaks.
> A career in tech has a crazy pile of expenses associated (Stanford isn't giving away comp sci degrees
I would contend that for somebody who's already going to Be Good At This, that would be a crazy expense from a bad decision. The best three engineers I know have degrees from UMass-Lowell, UMaine, and the University of Delaware. (I'm not #2, but I went to UMaine and graduated with $20K in loans. Paid off in four years, and I slacked.)
As far as lower career ceilings--each of those people (and I) are at lead/staff-level positions in the Boston area and have not wanted for challenging or well-paying work, while having expenses less than half of your average San Francisco tech nerd. The specter of the Bay Area looms large, but I think it's silly in how all-consuming it's considered.
- Different pricing. Apps can be anywhere from $1 to $500, while songs typically hover around $0.99. The wide variance in app pricing makes a subscription model challenging to satisfy all users and developers.
- Different markets. When you make an app, you're tying it to be used on a specific platform. It is additional work to make it cross-platform. That alone is limiting for an apps' market, and in the case of iOS, the platform's owner can impose additional limits. Music is open-ish in the sense that you can make music once and release it in a way that it's playable, essentially, everywhere.
- Different revenue streams. Music is a digital good like apps, but it's also a physical good (CDs, records) and most importantly it's a service (live performances). It's possible to have additional revenue streams with apps, but it's not as common as it is with music. If Apple spontaneously created an app subscription model and your app was iOS only, you would suddenly be very locked into that business model, whereas with music you will always have additional options.