Just to clarify, I can play any song or album on Beats just as if I own them, as with Spotify. What I was trying to do is highlight what I think is a strong area of Beats, and it's their playlists. Sometimes I just want to choose a playlist and like every song on it and not have to constantly skip over songs I don't like. You don't use the ready-made playlists on Spotify at all?
Oh man, for me, making my own playlists is hard work and takes a lot of time. Guess it's from my days of making mix tapes. That said, being a Beats and Spotify subscriber, if I could get Beats for $5.99/mo. there would be no reason for me to keep Spotify. I can't remember the last time I found a song or album on Spotify that wasn't also on Beats.
looks like people fail to remember that Apple has done the third party apps pre-installed and couldn't be removed.
Can you remind me of such an app? Was it Google Maps?
I agree with those who say there should be a way to delete (most of) the default apps (and an easy way to re-download them). Especially in this case, if the rumor correct. Having an app on your device that you cannot use at all without paying a subscription would be very bad form. Frankly I would be flabbergasted if Apple did this. An alternative would be merging iTunes radio into the Beats app and having the Beats service available as an IAP. I could easily see Apple doing that (and not providing a way to delete it).
You think Jimmy Iovine had ZERO to do with U2's album promotion with Apple, when the reason for getting him was to be a bridge between Apple and the music industry?
Apple has had a major music presence ever since iTunes debuted. The annual month-long free concert thing being one obvious example. There was nothing about the U2 promotion that related to Beats. If they wanted to do a tie-in they would have. It was clearly an effort to keep the iTunes brand front of mind.
Oh man, for me, making my own playlists is hard work and takes a lot of time. Guess it's from my days of making mix tapes. That said, being a Beats and Spotify subscriber, if I could get Beats for $5.99/mo. there would be no reason for me to keep Spotify. I can't remember the last time I found a song or album on Spotify that wasn't also on Beats.
For $5.99 if they had the same selection of music, I would switch too. Spotify though is losing money at $9.99 though.
Great. More Apple iOS bloatware ala Newsstand, GameCenter, Notes, Reminders, Passbook etc.
Used to be a time when iOS didn't have this problem....
Correction, there was a time when this "problem" was more limited. Unless you remember a time when you could buy an iPhone with no apps at all. I think that was called an iPod, and even that had a timer and a game you couldn't delete.
Ultimately I think these music subscription services are doomed to fail - because they simply won't be profitable for the vast majority of artists. How many times do I have to listen to your song at, what, $.006 (!!!) per play, before you make that $1.29 I would otherwise have given you by purchasing the song outright?
The value of music has been catastrophically damaged by subscription services. No one wants to buy a song if they can just listen to it for free (with ads). Not enough people are willing to commit $10 a month for subscriptions. That recurring revenue stream record execs dream about every night just isn't hitting the level required to keep it viable.
Funny how the music business publicly griped about Apple destroying their livelihood. You know what destroyed your livelihood, you tools? Spotify and Co.
Apple has had a major music presence ever since iTunes debuted. The annual month-long free concert thing being one obvious example. There was nothing about the U2 promotion that related to Beats. If they wanted to do a tie-in they would have. It was clearly an effort to keep the iTunes brand front of mind.
I am not complaining about Beats the company, or product. I am complaining about everything Apple has done related to Beats.
Keep in mind that the Beats acquisition was also an acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, to help Apple with the music industry. Assuming that he did not suggest or push for the U2 partnership, he should have at the very least warned Apple execs that U2 was not a good idea (and I say this as a massive U2 fan), and pushing their music on all iDevices with auto-updates of songs enabled without explicitly asking the user was an even worse idea?
Oh my, I can just hear the ranting and raving over a preinstalled app that ‘nobody wants’ and cannot be deleted. Did Bono come up with this idea?
There are still threads on the Apple discussion forums kept alive by malcontents railing over not being able to delete the Newsstand app. And that’s been going on for a couple of years now.
Yep, the trolls are already going apeshit over at MacRumors about ‘more bloat’ and still not being able to delete Newsstand. So utterly predictable.
Get out the lawn chairs, put the beer on ice, make the popcorn. It’s gonna be a three ring circus with clowns and confetti canons... and maybe midgets too.
I wonder if you say the same thing about Android or carrier crapware? Cause that is exactly what this is; Crapware.
As I continue to pay the full fee (in the UK) for iTunes Match and NOT benefit from the value of iTunes Radio - which they've essentially abandoned before roll-out - all mentions on the UK website were erased, it initially said "coming soon" - we shall see what happens internationally with this.
First no iTunes Radio, then no Apple Pay, now no Beats Music.
No doubt, it’s all in the name of diversity; Apple want to encourage different countries to be deprived in different ways.
Ultimately I think these music subscription services are doomed to fail - because they simply won't be profitable for the vast majority of artists. How many times do I have to listen to your song at, what, $.006 (!!!) per play, before you make that $1.29 I would otherwise have given you by purchasing the song outright?
The value of music has been catastrophically damaged by subscription services. No one wants to buy a song if they can just listen to it for free (with ads). Not enough people are willing to commit $10 a month for subscriptions. That recurring revenue stream record execs dream about every night just isn't hitting the level required to keep it viable.
Funny how the music business publicly griped about Apple destroying their livelihood. You know what destroyed your livelihood, you tools? Spotify and Co.
Precisely.
And people complain why music is so bad these days.
I am not complaining about Beats the company, or product. I am complaining about everything Apple has done related to Beats.
Keep in mind that the Beats acquisition was also an acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, to help Apple with the music industry. Assuming that he did not suggest or push for the U2 partnership, he should have at the very least warned Apple execs that U2 was not a good idea (and I say this as a massive U2 fan), and pushing their music on all iDevices with auto-updates of songs enabled without explicitly asking the user was an even worse idea?
I disagree completely. Apple has had a relationship with Bono and U2 for many years. I doubt the new guy played much of a role in this decision at all. And the auto-push thing was more of a technical or iOS expectations issue than anything else. It wasn't about the choice of music. I expect that nothing about the Beats acquisition played any role in how U2-free-album-gate played out. And if Apple were to get a "do over" I expect the only change they would make would be to give users a choice before pushing the album to every device. Again, that's something I would expect Apple's user experience experts to get right, not some music industry guru.
All Apple needs to do is add "hide" options in settings just like they did with Nike+.
The app will still be in the device but won't appear on the home screen.
Also, what's with Apple isolating everything now? Just but Beats and Podcasts into the music app, Tips in settings app, combine Reminders and Voice Memos into the Notes app.
And Apple really needs to create an iStore or something that fuses iBooks, iTunes and the App Store together.
Comments
Just to clarify, I can play any song or album on Beats just as if I own them, as with Spotify. What I was trying to do is highlight what I think is a strong area of Beats, and it's their playlists. Sometimes I just want to choose a playlist and like every song on it and not have to constantly skip over songs I don't like. You don't use the ready-made playlists on Spotify at all?
No, I make my own playlists.
Used to be a time when iOS didn't have this problem....
No, I make my own playlists.
Oh man, for me, making my own playlists is hard work and takes a lot of time. Guess it's from my days of making mix tapes. That said, being a Beats and Spotify subscriber, if I could get Beats for $5.99/mo. there would be no reason for me to keep Spotify. I can't remember the last time I found a song or album on Spotify that wasn't also on Beats.
looks like people fail to remember that Apple has done the third party apps pre-installed and couldn't be removed.
Can you remind me of such an app? Was it Google Maps?
I agree with those who say there should be a way to delete (most of) the default apps (and an easy way to re-download them). Especially in this case, if the rumor correct. Having an app on your device that you cannot use at all without paying a subscription would be very bad form. Frankly I would be flabbergasted if Apple did this. An alternative would be merging iTunes radio into the Beats app and having the Beats service available as an IAP. I could easily see Apple doing that (and not providing a way to delete it).
Explicit music filter or it's a no-go for me.
Baffling that neither Spotify nor Beats offer something so fundamentally essential (and so unbelievably simple to implement).
You think Jimmy Iovine had ZERO to do with U2's album promotion with Apple, when the reason for getting him was to be a bridge between Apple and the music industry?
Apple has had a major music presence ever since iTunes debuted. The annual month-long free concert thing being one obvious example. There was nothing about the U2 promotion that related to Beats. If they wanted to do a tie-in they would have. It was clearly an effort to keep the iTunes brand front of mind.
Oh man, for me, making my own playlists is hard work and takes a lot of time. Guess it's from my days of making mix tapes. That said, being a Beats and Spotify subscriber, if I could get Beats for $5.99/mo. there would be no reason for me to keep Spotify. I can't remember the last time I found a song or album on Spotify that wasn't also on Beats.
For $5.99 if they had the same selection of music, I would switch too. Spotify though is losing money at $9.99 though.
Great. More Apple iOS bloatware ala Newsstand, GameCenter, Notes, Reminders, Passbook etc.
Used to be a time when iOS didn't have this problem....
Correction, there was a time when this "problem" was more limited. Unless you remember a time when you could buy an iPhone with no apps at all. I think that was called an iPod, and even that had a timer and a game you couldn't delete.
Ultimately I think these music subscription services are doomed to fail - because they simply won't be profitable for the vast majority of artists. How many times do I have to listen to your song at, what, $.006 (!!!) per play, before you make that $1.29 I would otherwise have given you by purchasing the song outright?
The value of music has been catastrophically damaged by subscription services. No one wants to buy a song if they can just listen to it for free (with ads). Not enough people are willing to commit $10 a month for subscriptions. That recurring revenue stream record execs dream about every night just isn't hitting the level required to keep it viable.
Funny how the music business publicly griped about Apple destroying their livelihood. You know what destroyed your livelihood, you tools? Spotify and Co.
Apple has had a major music presence ever since iTunes debuted. The annual month-long free concert thing being one obvious example. There was nothing about the U2 promotion that related to Beats. If they wanted to do a tie-in they would have. It was clearly an effort to keep the iTunes brand front of mind.
I am not complaining about Beats the company, or product. I am complaining about everything Apple has done related to Beats.
Keep in mind that the Beats acquisition was also an acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, to help Apple with the music industry. Assuming that he did not suggest or push for the U2 partnership, he should have at the very least warned Apple execs that U2 was not a good idea (and I say this as a massive U2 fan), and pushing their music on all iDevices with auto-updates of songs enabled without explicitly asking the user was an even worse idea?
I have an idea: discontinue this, incorporate into iTunes (OS X)/Music (iOS) instead of the nonsense they’re planning.
What about those people crying that iTunes already does too much?
/s
They're making you a river.
As I continue to pay the full fee (in the UK) for iTunes Match and NOT benefit from the value of iTunes Radio - which they've essentially abandoned before roll-out - all mentions on the UK website were erased, it initially said "coming soon" - we shall see what happens internationally with this.
First no iTunes Radio, then no Apple Pay, now no Beats Music.
No doubt, it’s all in the name of diversity; Apple want to encourage different countries to be deprived in different ways.
Ultimately I think these music subscription services are doomed to fail - because they simply won't be profitable for the vast majority of artists. How many times do I have to listen to your song at, what, $.006 (!!!) per play, before you make that $1.29 I would otherwise have given you by purchasing the song outright?
The value of music has been catastrophically damaged by subscription services. No one wants to buy a song if they can just listen to it for free (with ads). Not enough people are willing to commit $10 a month for subscriptions. That recurring revenue stream record execs dream about every night just isn't hitting the level required to keep it viable.
Funny how the music business publicly griped about Apple destroying their livelihood. You know what destroyed your livelihood, you tools? Spotify and Co.
Precisely.
And people complain why music is so bad these days.
Is this just more whining or is there a real problem?
I am not complaining about Beats the company, or product. I am complaining about everything Apple has done related to Beats.
Keep in mind that the Beats acquisition was also an acqui-hire of Jimmy Iovine, to help Apple with the music industry. Assuming that he did not suggest or push for the U2 partnership, he should have at the very least warned Apple execs that U2 was not a good idea (and I say this as a massive U2 fan), and pushing their music on all iDevices with auto-updates of songs enabled without explicitly asking the user was an even worse idea?
I disagree completely. Apple has had a relationship with Bono and U2 for many years. I doubt the new guy played much of a role in this decision at all. And the auto-push thing was more of a technical or iOS expectations issue than anything else. It wasn't about the choice of music. I expect that nothing about the Beats acquisition played any role in how U2-free-album-gate played out. And if Apple were to get a "do over" I expect the only change they would make would be to give users a choice before pushing the album to every device. Again, that's something I would expect Apple's user experience experts to get right, not some music industry guru.
The app will still be in the device but won't appear on the home screen.
Also, what's with Apple isolating everything now? Just but Beats and Podcasts into the music app, Tips in settings app, combine Reminders and Voice Memos into the Notes app.
And Apple really needs to create an iStore or something that fuses iBooks, iTunes and the App Store together.