streaming music... will be a wasted effort. SJ was right not to bend to subscription music years ago.
If i want random, mixed, new and old music, I simply turn on my "radio" , a novel idea that has been around for a looong time. and i get some human chat/opinion and news thrown in with it. And its doesnt cost a monthly subscription.
just put in an FM chip, built your own tuner app and have a button to "buy" the current playing song, using a shazam like background process to identify it. Simple. And put in the feature that was in the old iPod Nano to be able to pause and rewind radio. Perfect.
reminds me of an old joke.. best told by a really old grand-dad. "there she was, lying on the beach , with nothing on but the wireless"
*** Kids... the radio was called a wireless in the by-gone days. not related to WiFi. :-)
Does Apple really need to get into streaming radio?
I agree that perhaps they shouldn't at this time or even ever.
I'm not sure I buy that they are. When they bought lala.com there were a lot of features they canned that were awesome. They tried to bring the follow features in as Ping but it flopped. Both because they never got past major bands and cause the sampling features from Lala were missing. But those features required royalty deals and such deals almost never carry over sales of services and companies.
THIS return of features could be what these alleged talks are about, not a full fledged radio service like the 20 that are already being done.
Nice to know you know exactly what it is despite knowing absolutely nothing about it whatsoever.
Despite the fact that we have no Apple released facts I happen to agree with ascii as my comments about Lala would suggest. I too think that this isn't about a full on radio system but rather an enhancement of current iTunes Store features designed to sell more music. Which was in many ways more what Lala was even without being directly connected to iTunes. (And only iTunes)
"Title is redundant ... Reportedly ..., says report. Just FYI."
If the report said reportedly, then saying the report reportedly reported something is just reporting what the report reported. So I'm not sure it's redundant.
Despite the fact that we have no Apple released facts I happen to agree with ascii as my comments about Lala would suggest. I too think that this isn't about a full on radio system but rather an enhancement of current iTunes Store features designed to sell more music. Which was in many ways more what Lala was even without being directly connected to iTunes. (And only iTunes)
I agree also. I kind of doubt that this "iRadio" will even allow access to already existing internet radio stations. It seems more likely to be Apple's streams that they pay for upfront, provide to the user for free, and then put a "buy" button beside each song as it comes up. Personally, I am only interested if it lets me play my own internet radio stations that I already listen to.
I'm not so sure the rumour is even true in that Apple has more or less ignored Internet radio for it's entire existence. It seems weird that they would go out of their way to support it now.
Even more reason to believe that the product will be "streams" but not necessarily "radio."
Dad: "You know email spam, right? Well it was like that but with music sprinkled in."
You summed it all up perfectly. Fact is, streaming music is just like conventional radio, WITHOUT the ads.
In reality, nothing is free, not even conventional radio. We don't directly pay for the songs outright, but we pay with the time we have to listen to ads. The difference with streaming radio is that we pay directly to the streaming radio company to avoid having to listen to ads.
It all boils down to what really is more precious to you: your time/sanity, or your money.
1) There are no ads, so I spend more time listening to actual music rather than companies pitching their case on why listeners need to buy their stuff.
2) I can skip songs, so when the currently playing song is not what I like, I can just go to the next one in the list.
3) I can continue listening to a song even though I stopped halfway. Can't do that with normal live radio.
4) I can download & listen to the stations offline. So I can still continue listening to songs even in areas of poor radio & Internet receptions.
5) I can create my own song playlist. Granted, this is an extra feature which costs more on Slacker Radio. Not sure how they would handle this in Apple iRadio when it surfaces later on.
I did have the same thoughts, why pay when free is available. But after trying it out for a few weeks, I feel very reluctant to go back to the old model of radio & forfeiting the 4 benefits I mentioned above.
It is a personal choice anyway, but I do hope it gains a lot of traction. Without customer support, I don't think the trend of streaming radio can last very long.
Thanks, that's helpful. I didn't know you can do any of those things. I thought it was just a linear stream like OTA radio.
Except .. even in the 70's, buying a radio to listen to at home was already basically just for geezers.
Are you sure? I was still a kid in the 70's, but I don't recall radio being viewed as geezerly. I had both a portable radio and a clock radio in my room, both of which I listened to a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
You are using 40-50 year old technology
Right? We all know that anything old is automatically bad. Like TV. And cars. And... well, you get the idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
[...] and you are somehow pissed that the new thing coming out has passed you by?
Huh? I don't recall seeing anything anywhere in the thread that would suggest anyone feels left behind. Some have questioned whether there's any reason for Apple to get involved in that market, and some have questioned whether there's even enough benefit to make the concept viable long term, but I don't see anyone crying the blues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
If it weren't for all the folks listening to it because they are trapped in their cars, "radio" would have died out 30 years ago at least.
I'm calling it now......it won't be called 'iRadio'...... It will be called the iTunes Tuner or iTuneR......no need for iRadio when you have iTunes already and a Tuner is a conventional name of a radio....Duh!!!!.....
Are you sure? I was still a kid in the 70's, but I don't recall radio being viewed as geezerly. I had both a portable radio and a clock radio in my room, both of which I listened to a lot.
Heck, throughout the '70s, boomboxes became popular and every kid owned such a radio / tape player for both portable and home use.
Definitely everyone owned a home clock radio, especially if you wanted to wake up at college
Kids don't know what a tuner is. Kids probably don't know what a television set is.
And the name iTunes and iTuner? You HONESTLY think they'll have two names that similar simultaneously?
No but I bet they will still use TUNER in some way......... I'd put money on it if I could...... Everything Apple creates doesn't have an "i" in front of it..... There is no iApp Store or iFaceTime,... I'll grant you the iSight camera that resurfaced lately, but the i is usually intended for hardware and not for functions or added iTunes categories,.... So you may hate on my theory, but it makes a billion times more sense than drawing the conclusion of iRadio.....
And yeah, I'm familiar with iMessages, but the use of i is on the way out....
If it's an 'added iTunes category', it will just be called 'Radio' and supplant the existing radio option. If it's a standalone service, you can bet there'll be an i in front of it.
So you may hate on my theory, but it makes a billion times more sense than drawing the conclusion of iRadio...
Sounds like you exaggerate a billion times a day.
"Tuner" makes less sense than "radio", as tuning implements transcend musical use.
…the use of i is on the way out….
That explains why they keep creating new products and services that use it, huh?
The i is generally used for services that use the Internet. Guess what a mythical radio service would use.
Lol...... You have some poor examples for your argument ..... iWeb is gone..... iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD are very poor examples of i=Internet
iBooks was a long time ago and newsstand there's no i... iCal is pretty old too and contacts and Airplay don't have an i
I'll give you iCloud as the only recent i service Apple has recently provided, but it's certainly not an example of a renewed approach to name services,.... Overall Apple is clearly focusing less on the i naming scheme.....
You think I exaggerate, but I just speak the truth..... Grow up and look at the facts and don't get so butt hurt when someone challenges your assertions..... Your immaturity is showing and it clearly identifies you as a very childish moderator.
You can have your opinion and I will have mine, but to say i exaggerate is just that... an exaggeration. based on facts your iRadio assertion is ridiculous..
…iWeb is gone….. iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD are very poor examples of i=Internet…
You have both moved the goalposts from the original argument and are combining unrelated statements to attempt to make a point.
Don't do that.
…iBooks was a long time ago…
No, it's right now, in fact. The iBook was a long time ago. I'm actually quite surprised you think it was a long time ago but AREN'T pointing out that "it's hardware", as part of your refutation.
…and newsstand there's no i…
That's probably why I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about Newsstand…
…iCal is pretty old too and contacts…
Ah, I'd forgotten about iCal—which further makes my point—thank you. Though it is "Calendar" now. And Address Book was never given an "i" name, so why you'd bring it up is beyond me.
…and Airplay don't have an i…
That's probably why I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about AirPlay…
I'll give you iCloud…
Interestingly enough, I'd also forgotten about iCloud—which further makes my point—thank you.
…as the only recent i service Apple has recently provided…
iBooks, iMessage, iAds, which I've also just remembered.
…but it's certainly not an example of a renewed approach to name services….
And since that was never claimed, good job refuting something that wasn't up for refutation. If they never stopped doing something, the continuation of doing it obviously isn't an example of "renewal" thereof.
Overall Apple is clearly focusing less on the i naming scheme...
And now we're back to your original statement, which is just as wrong as it was the first time, only now you're claiming you're right by having made up some more arguments. Nice waste of time.
You think I exaggerate, but I just speak the truth..... Grow up and look at the facts and don't get so butt hurt when someone challenges your assertions...
This would be an infraction said to anyone else. Please take note of this in the future. If your argument hadn't already been lost due to lack of fact, it would have been de facto lost because of this behavior.
Your immaturity…
… *ahem* "butt-hurt"…
…but to say i exaggerate is just that… an exaggeration. based on facts your iRadio assertion is ridiculous..
It's exactly as ridiculous as your assertion, which is based in exactly as many facts as mine. Don't do this in the future.
Comments
If i want random, mixed, new and old music, I simply turn on my "radio" , a novel idea that has been around for a looong time. and i get some human chat/opinion and news thrown in with it. And its doesnt cost a monthly subscription.
just put in an FM chip, built your own tuner app and have a button to "buy" the current playing song, using a shazam like background process to identify it. Simple. And put in the feature that was in the old iPod Nano to be able to pause and rewind radio. Perfect.
reminds me of an old joke.. best told by a really old grand-dad. "there she was, lying on the beach , with nothing on but the wireless"
*** Kids... the radio was called a wireless in the by-gone days. not related to WiFi. :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfisher
Does Apple really need to get into streaming radio?
I agree that perhaps they shouldn't at this time or even ever.
I'm not sure I buy that they are. When they bought lala.com there were a lot of features they canned that were awesome. They tried to bring the follow features in as Ping but it flopped. Both because they never got past major bands and cause the sampling features from Lala were missing. But those features required royalty deals and such deals almost never carry over sales of services and companies.
THIS return of features could be what these alleged talks are about, not a full fledged radio service like the 20 that are already being done.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Nice to know you know exactly what it is despite knowing absolutely nothing about it whatsoever.
Despite the fact that we have no Apple released facts I happen to agree with ascii as my comments about Lala would suggest. I too think that this isn't about a full on radio system but rather an enhancement of current iTunes Store features designed to sell more music. Which was in many ways more what Lala was even without being directly connected to iTunes. (And only iTunes)
If the report said reportedly, then saying the report reportedly reported something is just reporting what the report reported. So I'm not sure it's redundant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JoshA
Well I got all excited when I thought iRadio would be a real radio from Apple.
How nice if it could handle AM, FM and WiFi all in one small box.
I'd definitely be a buyer as we need to replace our 70s radio.
But just streaming radio music to a computing device?
OK, but not enough to really excite me.
Except .. even in the 70's, buying a radio to listen to at home was already basically just for geezers.
You are using 40-50 year old technology and you are somehow pissed that the new thing coming out has passed you by?
If it weren't for all the folks listening to it because they are trapped in their cars, "radio" would have died out 30 years ago at least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Despite the fact that we have no Apple released facts I happen to agree with ascii as my comments about Lala would suggest. I too think that this isn't about a full on radio system but rather an enhancement of current iTunes Store features designed to sell more music. Which was in many ways more what Lala was even without being directly connected to iTunes. (And only iTunes)
I agree also. I kind of doubt that this "iRadio" will even allow access to already existing internet radio stations. It seems more likely to be Apple's streams that they pay for upfront, provide to the user for free, and then put a "buy" button beside each song as it comes up. Personally, I am only interested if it lets me play my own internet radio stations that I already listen to.
I'm not so sure the rumour is even true in that Apple has more or less ignored Internet radio for it's entire existence. It seems weird that they would go out of their way to support it now.
Even more reason to believe that the product will be "streams" but not necessarily "radio."
Billy: "Dad, what was radio?"
Dad: "You know email spam, right? Well it was like that but with music sprinkled in."
You summed it all up perfectly. Fact is, streaming music is just like conventional radio, WITHOUT the ads.
In reality, nothing is free, not even conventional radio. We don't directly pay for the songs outright, but we pay with the time we have to listen to ads. The difference with streaming radio is that we pay directly to the streaming radio company to avoid having to listen to ads.
It all boils down to what really is more precious to you: your time/sanity, or your money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikmanshah
The only advantages I could find right now are:
1) There are no ads, so I spend more time listening to actual music rather than companies pitching their case on why listeners need to buy their stuff.
2) I can skip songs, so when the currently playing song is not what I like, I can just go to the next one in the list.
3) I can continue listening to a song even though I stopped halfway. Can't do that with normal live radio.
4) I can download & listen to the stations offline. So I can still continue listening to songs even in areas of poor radio & Internet receptions.
5) I can create my own song playlist. Granted, this is an extra feature which costs more on Slacker Radio. Not sure how they would handle this in Apple iRadio when it surfaces later on.
I did have the same thoughts, why pay when free is available. But after trying it out for a few weeks, I feel very reluctant to go back to the old model of radio & forfeiting the 4 benefits I mentioned above.
It is a personal choice anyway, but I do hope it gains a lot of traction. Without customer support, I don't think the trend of streaming radio can last very long.
Thanks, that's helpful. I didn't know you can do any of those things. I thought it was just a linear stream like OTA radio.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Except .. even in the 70's, buying a radio to listen to at home was already basically just for geezers.
Are you sure? I was still a kid in the 70's, but I don't recall radio being viewed as geezerly. I had both a portable radio and a clock radio in my room, both of which I listened to a lot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
You are using 40-50 year old technology
Right? We all know that anything old is automatically bad. Like TV. And cars. And... well, you get the idea.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
[...] and you are somehow pissed that the new thing coming out has passed you by?
Huh? I don't recall seeing anything anywhere in the thread that would suggest anyone feels left behind. Some have questioned whether there's any reason for Apple to get involved in that market, and some have questioned whether there's even enough benefit to make the concept viable long term, but I don't see anyone crying the blues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
If it weren't for all the folks listening to it because they are trapped in their cars, "radio" would have died out 30 years ago at least.
Probably true. So how do I get Pandora in my car?
Originally Posted by App-Guru
…a Tuner is a conventional name of a radio….Duh!!!!.....
Kids don't know what a tuner is. Kids probably don't know what a television set is.
And the name iTunes and iTuner? You HONESTLY think they'll have two names that similar simultaneously?
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
Are you sure? I was still a kid in the 70's, but I don't recall radio being viewed as geezerly. I had both a portable radio and a clock radio in my room, both of which I listened to a lot.
Heck, throughout the '70s, boomboxes became popular and every kid owned such a radio / tape player for both portable and home use.
Definitely everyone owned a home clock radio, especially if you wanted to wake up at college
No but I bet they will still use TUNER in some way......... I'd put money on it if I could...... Everything Apple creates doesn't have an "i" in front of it..... There is no iApp Store or iFaceTime,... I'll grant you the iSight camera that resurfaced lately, but the i is usually intended for hardware and not for functions or added iTunes categories,.... So you may hate on my theory, but it makes a billion times more sense than drawing the conclusion of iRadio.....
And yeah, I'm familiar with iMessages, but the use of i is on the way out....
Originally Posted by App-Guru
…the i is usually intended for hardware…
iTunes, iMovie, iDVD, iWeb, iPhoto, iBooks, iMessage…
…added iTunes categories…
If it's an 'added iTunes category', it will just be called 'Radio' and supplant the existing radio option. If it's a standalone service, you can bet there'll be an i in front of it.
So you may hate on my theory, but it makes a billion times more sense than drawing the conclusion of iRadio...
Sounds like you exaggerate a billion times a day.
"Tuner" makes less sense than "radio", as tuning implements transcend musical use.
…the use of i is on the way out….
That explains why they keep creating new products and services that use it, huh?
The i is generally used for services that use the Internet. Guess what a mythical radio service would use.
iBooks was a long time ago and newsstand there's no i... iCal is pretty old too and contacts and Airplay don't have an i
I'll give you iCloud as the only recent i service Apple has recently provided, but it's certainly not an example of a renewed approach to name services,.... Overall Apple is clearly focusing less on the i naming scheme.....
You think I exaggerate, but I just speak the truth..... Grow up and look at the facts and don't get so butt hurt when someone challenges your assertions..... Your immaturity is showing and it clearly identifies you as a very childish moderator.
You can have your opinion and I will have mine, but to say i exaggerate is just that... an exaggeration. based on facts your iRadio assertion is ridiculous..
Originally Posted by App-Guru
…iWeb is gone….. iPhoto, iMovie, and iDVD are very poor examples of i=Internet…
You have both moved the goalposts from the original argument and are combining unrelated statements to attempt to make a point.
Don't do that.
…iBooks was a long time ago…
No, it's right now, in fact. The iBook was a long time ago. I'm actually quite surprised you think it was a long time ago but AREN'T pointing out that "it's hardware", as part of your refutation.
…and newsstand there's no i…
That's probably why I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about Newsstand…
…iCal is pretty old too and contacts…
Ah, I'd forgotten about iCal—which further makes my point—thank you. Though it is "Calendar" now. And Address Book was never given an "i" name, so why you'd bring it up is beyond me.
…and Airplay don't have an i…
That's probably why I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about AirPlay…
I'll give you iCloud…
Interestingly enough, I'd also forgotten about iCloud—which further makes my point—thank you.
…as the only recent i service Apple has recently provided…
iBooks, iMessage, iAds, which I've also just remembered.
…but it's certainly not an example of a renewed approach to name services….
And since that was never claimed, good job refuting something that wasn't up for refutation. If they never stopped doing something, the continuation of doing it obviously isn't an example of "renewal" thereof.
Overall Apple is clearly focusing less on the i naming scheme...
And now we're back to your original statement, which is just as wrong as it was the first time, only now you're claiming you're right by having made up some more arguments. Nice waste of time.
You think I exaggerate, but I just speak the truth..... Grow up and look at the facts and don't get so butt hurt when someone challenges your assertions...
This would be an infraction said to anyone else. Please take note of this in the future. If your argument hadn't already been lost due to lack of fact, it would have been de facto lost because of this behavior.
Your immaturity…
… *ahem* "butt-hurt"…
…but to say i exaggerate is just that… an exaggeration. based on facts your iRadio assertion is ridiculous..
It's exactly as ridiculous as your assertion, which is based in exactly as many facts as mine. Don't do this in the future.