I still don't see how this service can be anything other than a stream of content based on the "Genius" technology, and all Genius does is show you stuff from the same genre, and/or stuff that "other people also bought."
For me, Genius has never even got close to a good recommendation or an idea of what I like in music even after years of purchasing and analysing, but even if it works for others, it's still not going to be anywhere as good as an old fashioned curated Internet radio station.
It's almost a sure thing as well, that a part of the deal is the music companies will be promoting music to the end user through this service. In other words, if you listen to a lot of "alternative" music (a ridiculously gigantic and eclectic category that covers everything from electropop to folk), then any new "alternative" albums will most likely be showing up in your stream whether you like that kind of music or not. The whole thing sounds a lot closer to AM radio than anything else.
I already listen to real Internet radio stations and rely on some of them to discover new music. Why would I replace one of these with a lesser, automated version from Apple that's virtually guaranteed to not do as good a job?
It's simply impossible for any algorithm to be as good at picking the music as an actual human curator who has ears and a brain and exists in a certain cultural milieu.
Many people, myself included, enjoy Pandora. I am I interested to see how iRadio differs. I see Apple using its genius technology to give you streams.
Didn't people complain about iMessage just being a copy of SMS or some other IM service when it arrived? It clearly has plenty of features that make it very Apple. I'd certainly like the timeline bugs worked out and don't understnad why iOS still only sees a formatted (aka: link label or anchor text) hyperlink as plain text when sent from iMessage on a Mac but they brought something to the table that Apple's customers find very useful. I expect that from whatever they are doing with this ITunes Radio rumour.
I think Apple wants iAd revenue and increased payments from iTunes sales. It will be interesting to see what they roll out.
Having said that, I would love a decent curated streaming radio service that also allows me to cache tunes for offline listening and I'm willing to pay a monthly subscription fee for that. Unfortunately, Spotify just does not work for me. Pandora also does not fit the bill, either. I do not want to train a computer to know what I like, not do I want to be bombarded with ads.
If iRadio only is streaming music with ads, what does it really offer beyond what the Radio feature in iTunes, with hundreds of curated stations, already offer?
I still don't see how this service can be anything other than a stream of content based on the "Genius" technology, and all Genius does is show you stuff from the same genre, and/or stuff that "other people also bought."
For me, Genius has never even got close to a good recommendation or an idea of what I like in music even after years of purchasing and analysing, but even if it works for others, it's still not going to be anywhere as good as an old fashioned curated Internet radio station.
It's almost a sure thing as well, that a part of the deal is the music companies will be promoting music to the end user through this service. In other words, if you listen to a lot of "alternative" music (a ridiculously gigantic and eclectic category that covers everything from electropop to folk), then any new "alternative" albums will most likely be showing up in your stream whether you like that kind of music or not. The whole thing sounds a lot closer to AM radio than anything else.
I already listen to real Internet radio stations and rely on some of them to discover new music. Why would I replace one of these with a lesser, automated version from Apple that's virtually guaranteed to not do as good a job?
It's simply impossible for any algorithm to be as good at picking the music as an actual human curator who has ears and a brain and exists in a certain cultural milieu.
I don't use any streaming service at the moment - I used to use LastFM. The part I liked was to be able to see other people who liked what I liked and then listen to their song lists. A pretty good way to discover new music. I am not sure the music companies promotion aspect need be as ominous as you suggest - it wouldn't be in their interest to feed you anything the don't think you'll love.
I'd like a subscription model to allow me to download songs to my devices and play them as I like without having to stream. Streaming is OK at home or office but not 'on the go'. I wonder if Apple will bring back elements of Ping to facilitate sharing, recommendations etc.
Just keep in mind that the objective is to make money, not please everyone. Why we expect altruism and warm fuzzies out of a capitalistic corporation I don't know.
Because Apple DOES give me warm fuzzies, and have for many many years. I'm also aware it's a capitalistic corporation. The 2 concepts aren't mutually exclusive. That's because Apple understand that creating warm fuzzies out of people greatly helps with making money.
OTOH, we knew virtually nothing when music sales on iTunes was announced with multiple labels already signed up. I think it was likewise with iPad and book publishers?
That was 2001(?) when they had much less mindshare. I think the iTMS and the Windows version of iTunes came out right about the same time.
If rumors about Apple engineers being assigned to fake projects are true, I wonder if they might do the same thing with partner negotiations. Imagine Eddy Cue negotiating deals on books, music, video and who knows what else. Just before signatures, he informs everyone, "Just kidding. We were only serious about music. Thanks for helping us double down on secrecy."
Because Apple DOES give me warm fuzzies, and have for many many years. I'm also aware it's a capitalistic corporation. The 2 concepts aren't mutually exclusive. That's because Apple understand that creating warm fuzzies out of people greatly helps with making money.
Apple, while giving you warm fuzzies, has also given others chills. Apple's history, past and recent, clearly demonstrates that it is not an entirely ethical organization on all fronts. I do give it credit, however, for sticking to its principles more so than most companies. But those principles are not always about ethics and fairness.
Apple, while giving you warm fuzzies, has also given others chills. Apple's history, past and recent, clearly demonstrates that it is not an entirely ethical organization on all fronts. I do give it credit, however, for sticking to its principles more so than most companies. But those principles are not always about ethics and fairness.
Because Apple DOES give me warm fuzzies, and have for many many years. I'm also aware it's a capitalistic corporation. The 2 concepts aren't mutually exclusive. That's because Apple understand that creating warm fuzzies out of people greatly helps with making money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Just keep in mind that the objective is to make money, not please everyone. Why we expect altruism and warm fuzzies out of a capitalistic corporation I don't know.
Nitpicking here - While corporate capitalism exists, there is no such thing as a capitalistic corporation.
If rumors about Apple engineers being assigned to fake projects are true, I wonder if they might do the same thing with partner negotiations.
That seems like such a circuitous and wasteful way to due business, not to mention potentially pissing off the companies you're doing business with as well as customers. It's just too inefficient to think it's a reasonable goal for Apple to take. I'm sure they have plenty of paths that lead nowhere but I don't they have any that are designed to lead nowhere.
Apple is also said to be revising its iAd network to run audio advertisements as part of the service. Ad support is expected allow users to stream content from "iRadio" for free when it launches.
iAds on "iRadio" today.
iAds on "iTV" tomorrow?
In a way, "iRadio" could be a test bed for ad-subsidized "iTV" if and when it is rolled out.
Except that there's vastly more money to be made in the television industry.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Google also recently stepped into the streaming Internet radio market with All Access , which launched in May. The search company's subscription music service is expected to debut on iOS devices in the coming weeks.
And All Access is an ad-free pay-per-month service. $120 a year.
Funny. You'd think that Google would have come up with an ad-subsidized solution.
Maybe iAd is more flexible than Google's tired old web page banner ad technology.
I disagree. Apple's alleged new service may be a good vehicle for iAds but to say that iRadio is intended as an iAds kickstarter I think is misunderstanding Apple and how it works. Its exactly the kind of thing that is doomed to failure. iRadio will only succeed if the goal is to make it a successful service in its own right, and I really don't think Apple could be bothered to do it otherwise. Apple is not an advertising company. I can believe the two are working together but each is in it for its own purpose.
I'm not at all saying that iRadio isn't meant to be a great music streaming service. On the contrary if it isn't and listenership wanes then iAd's value does too. What I firmly believe is that, barring any significant backlash, Apple will require users of the service to opt-in to sharing data, probably including current location, to monetize their user-base more effectively for the advertisers. There won't be a paid subscription option IMO. That's been Apple's plan for sometime, to tie the two firmly together at the hip. It's not an evil thing either even tho some here have made it out to be since Google and Apple had a falling out a couple years back.
So some here lose a talking point about how you're the product at Google but not at Apple. Big deal. If they get a great music streaming service in return for a bit of personal data sharing needed for effective advertising it sounds like something most won't have any trouble with. Assuming the service was properly planned I believe a huge percentage will be more than willing to trade a little privacy for free music. . . .
... and If they don't want targeted ads they can sign up for Google's All-Access (supposedly available very soon for iOS) which doesn't serve up ads, but does require a subscription. And yeah that will be a switch most folks here probably didn't see coming.
I'm not at all saying that iRadio isn't meant to be a great music streaming service. On the contrary if it isn't and listenership wanes then iAd's value does too. What I firmly believe is that, barring any significant backlash, Apple will require users of the service to opt-in to sharing data, probably including current location, to monetize their user-base more effectively for the advertisers. There won't be a paid subscription option IMO. That's been Apple's plan for sometime, to tie the two firmly together at the hip. It's not an evil thing either even tho some here have made it out to be since Google and Apple had a falling out a couple years back.
So some here lose a talking point about how you're the product at Google but not at Apple. Big deal. If they get a great music streaming service in return for a bit of personal data sharing needed for effective advertising it sounds like something most won't have any trouble with. Assuming the service was properly planned I believe a huge percentage will be more than willing to trade a little privacy for free music. . . .
... and If they don't want targeted ads they can sign up for Google's All-Access (supposedly available very soon for iOS) which doesn't serve up ads, but does require a subscription. And yeah that will be a switch most folks here probably didn't see coming.
I don't disagree with any of that - I think you're previous post was misleading, or I read it wrong. I am not against advertising per se and I am not against targeted advertising, but the amount of personal data out there is disconcerting. Here is a very entertaining radio program / podcast on the subject - http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-2/2013/03/30/hyper-targeting-how-brands-track-you-online-1/
I would like there to be an option to avid ads in exchange for a subscription but I am not sure that will happen. Any such scheme will be counterproductive if successful. The people willing / able to pay to avoid advertising is probably exactly the audience the advertisers would love to reach...
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I still don't see how this service can be anything other than a stream of content based on the "Genius" technology, and all Genius does is show you stuff from the same genre, and/or stuff that "other people also bought."
For me, Genius has never even got close to a good recommendation or an idea of what I like in music even after years of purchasing and analysing, but even if it works for others, it's still not going to be anywhere as good as an old fashioned curated Internet radio station.
It's almost a sure thing as well, that a part of the deal is the music companies will be promoting music to the end user through this service. In other words, if you listen to a lot of "alternative" music (a ridiculously gigantic and eclectic category that covers everything from electropop to folk), then any new "alternative" albums will most likely be showing up in your stream whether you like that kind of music or not. The whole thing sounds a lot closer to AM radio than anything else.
I already listen to real Internet radio stations and rely on some of them to discover new music. Why would I replace one of these with a lesser, automated version from Apple that's virtually guaranteed to not do as good a job?
It's simply impossible for any algorithm to be as good at picking the music as an actual human curator who has ears and a brain and exists in a certain cultural milieu.
Well said
Didn't people complain about iMessage just being a copy of SMS or some other IM service when it arrived? It clearly has plenty of features that make it very Apple. I'd certainly like the timeline bugs worked out and don't understnad why iOS still only sees a formatted (aka: link label or anchor text) hyperlink as plain text when sent from iMessage on a Mac but they brought something to the table that Apple's customers find very useful. I expect that from whatever they are doing with this ITunes Radio rumour.
I think Apple wants iAd revenue and increased payments from iTunes sales. It will be interesting to see what they roll out.
Having said that, I would love a decent curated streaming radio service that also allows me to cache tunes for offline listening and I'm willing to pay a monthly subscription fee for that. Unfortunately, Spotify just does not work for me. Pandora also does not fit the bill, either. I do not want to train a computer to know what I like, not do I want to be bombarded with ads.
If iRadio only is streaming music with ads, what does it really offer beyond what the Radio feature in iTunes, with hundreds of curated stations, already offer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I still don't see how this service can be anything other than a stream of content based on the "Genius" technology, and all Genius does is show you stuff from the same genre, and/or stuff that "other people also bought."
For me, Genius has never even got close to a good recommendation or an idea of what I like in music even after years of purchasing and analysing, but even if it works for others, it's still not going to be anywhere as good as an old fashioned curated Internet radio station.
It's almost a sure thing as well, that a part of the deal is the music companies will be promoting music to the end user through this service. In other words, if you listen to a lot of "alternative" music (a ridiculously gigantic and eclectic category that covers everything from electropop to folk), then any new "alternative" albums will most likely be showing up in your stream whether you like that kind of music or not. The whole thing sounds a lot closer to AM radio than anything else.
I already listen to real Internet radio stations and rely on some of them to discover new music. Why would I replace one of these with a lesser, automated version from Apple that's virtually guaranteed to not do as good a job?
It's simply impossible for any algorithm to be as good at picking the music as an actual human curator who has ears and a brain and exists in a certain cultural milieu.
I don't use any streaming service at the moment - I used to use LastFM. The part I liked was to be able to see other people who liked what I liked and then listen to their song lists. A pretty good way to discover new music. I am not sure the music companies promotion aspect need be as ominous as you suggest - it wouldn't be in their interest to feed you anything the don't think you'll love.
I'd like a subscription model to allow me to download songs to my devices and play them as I like without having to stream. Streaming is OK at home or office but not 'on the go'. I wonder if Apple will bring back elements of Ping to facilitate sharing, recommendations etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Just keep in mind that the objective is to make money, not please everyone. Why we expect altruism and warm fuzzies out of a capitalistic corporation I don't know.
Because Apple DOES give me warm fuzzies, and have for many many years. I'm also aware it's a capitalistic corporation. The 2 concepts aren't mutually exclusive. That's because Apple understand that creating warm fuzzies out of people greatly helps with making money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
OTOH, we knew virtually nothing when music sales on iTunes was announced with multiple labels already signed up. I think it was likewise with iPad and book publishers?
That was 2001(?) when they had much less mindshare. I think the iTMS and the Windows version of iTunes came out right about the same time.
If rumors about Apple engineers being assigned to fake projects are true, I wonder if they might do the same thing with partner negotiations. Imagine Eddy Cue negotiating deals on books, music, video and who knows what else. Just before signatures, he informs everyone, "Just kidding. We were only serious about music. Thanks for helping us double down on secrecy."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Because Apple DOES give me warm fuzzies, and have for many many years. I'm also aware it's a capitalistic corporation. The 2 concepts aren't mutually exclusive. That's because Apple understand that creating warm fuzzies out of people greatly helps with making money.
Apple, while giving you warm fuzzies, has also given others chills. Apple's history, past and recent, clearly demonstrates that it is not an entirely ethical organization on all fronts. I do give it credit, however, for sticking to its principles more so than most companies. But those principles are not always about ethics and fairness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleZilla
Oh, Sony... How pitiful you have become. I miss the old days.
Who will end up owning Sony?
Samsung? Apple? Microsoft? Amazon? The Mountain View Ad Company?
Certainly not Apple, I hope.
Perhaps Disney -- who could sell off all of Sony's non-content, non-media divisions for scrap value and take a tax write-off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
Apple, while giving you warm fuzzies, has also given others chills. Apple's history, past and recent, clearly demonstrates that it is not an entirely ethical organization on all fronts. I do give it credit, however, for sticking to its principles more so than most companies. But those principles are not always about ethics and fairness.
Ah, back to your usual tripe.... get lost.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Because Apple DOES give me warm fuzzies, and have for many many years. I'm also aware it's a capitalistic corporation. The 2 concepts aren't mutually exclusive. That's because Apple understand that creating warm fuzzies out of people greatly helps with making money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Just keep in mind that the objective is to make money, not please everyone. Why we expect altruism and warm fuzzies out of a capitalistic corporation I don't know.
Nitpicking here - While corporate capitalism exists, there is no such thing as a capitalistic corporation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Ah, back to your usual tripe.... get lost.
Nope. Not going.
Up yours.
Originally Posted by stelligent
Apple's history, past and recent, clearly demonstrates that it is not an entirely ethical organization on all fronts.
Sure it has. Any examples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Sure it has. Any examples?
You just agreed with me. So why do we examples?
That seems like such a circuitous and wasteful way to due business, not to mention potentially pissing off the companies you're doing business with as well as customers. It's just too inefficient to think it's a reasonable goal for Apple to take. I'm sure they have plenty of paths that lead nowhere but I don't they have any that are designed to lead nowhere.
Originally Posted by stelligent
You just agreed with me.
Come off it. Now. You're better than this.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple is also said to be revising its iAd network to run audio advertisements as part of the service. Ad support is expected allow users to stream content from "iRadio" for free when it launches.
iAds on "iRadio" today.
iAds on "iTV" tomorrow?
In a way, "iRadio" could be a test bed for ad-subsidized "iTV" if and when it is rolled out.
Except that there's vastly more money to be made in the television industry.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Google also recently stepped into the streaming Internet radio market with All Access , which launched in May. The search company's subscription music service is expected to debut on iOS devices in the coming weeks.
And All Access is an ad-free pay-per-month service. $120 a year.
Funny. You'd think that Google would have come up with an ad-subsidized solution.
Maybe iAd is more flexible than Google's tired old web page banner ad technology.
I'm not at all saying that iRadio isn't meant to be a great music streaming service. On the contrary if it isn't and listenership wanes then iAd's value does too. What I firmly believe is that, barring any significant backlash, Apple will require users of the service to opt-in to sharing data, probably including current location, to monetize their user-base more effectively for the advertisers. There won't be a paid subscription option IMO. That's been Apple's plan for sometime, to tie the two firmly together at the hip. It's not an evil thing either even tho some here have made it out to be since Google and Apple had a falling out a couple years back.
So some here lose a talking point about how you're the product at Google but not at Apple. Big deal. If they get a great music streaming service in return for a bit of personal data sharing needed for effective advertising it sounds like something most won't have any trouble with. Assuming the service was properly planned I believe a huge percentage will be more than willing to trade a little privacy for free music. . . .
... and If they don't want targeted ads they can sign up for Google's All-Access (supposedly available very soon for iOS) which doesn't serve up ads, but does require a subscription. And yeah that will be a switch most folks here probably didn't see coming.
I don't agree with you.
So, any examples?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm not at all saying that iRadio isn't meant to be a great music streaming service. On the contrary if it isn't and listenership wanes then iAd's value does too. What I firmly believe is that, barring any significant backlash, Apple will require users of the service to opt-in to sharing data, probably including current location, to monetize their user-base more effectively for the advertisers. There won't be a paid subscription option IMO. That's been Apple's plan for sometime, to tie the two firmly together at the hip. It's not an evil thing either even tho some here have made it out to be since Google and Apple had a falling out a couple years back.
So some here lose a talking point about how you're the product at Google but not at Apple. Big deal. If they get a great music streaming service in return for a bit of personal data sharing needed for effective advertising it sounds like something most won't have any trouble with. Assuming the service was properly planned I believe a huge percentage will be more than willing to trade a little privacy for free music. . . .
... and If they don't want targeted ads they can sign up for Google's All-Access (supposedly available very soon for iOS) which doesn't serve up ads, but does require a subscription. And yeah that will be a switch most folks here probably didn't see coming.
I don't disagree with any of that - I think you're previous post was misleading, or I read it wrong. I am not against advertising per se and I am not against targeted advertising, but the amount of personal data out there is disconcerting. Here is a very entertaining radio program / podcast on the subject - http://www.cbc.ca/undertheinfluence/season-2/2013/03/30/hyper-targeting-how-brands-track-you-online-1/
I would like there to be an option to avid ads in exchange for a subscription but I am not sure that will happen. Any such scheme will be counterproductive if successful. The people willing / able to pay to avoid advertising is probably exactly the audience the advertisers would love to reach...