Trust me, you're not the only one.
You're right, there are plenty of idiots that can't understand simple economics.
The headphone business justified the entire purchase by itself...and they got the entire Beats service plus staff for basically nothing.
I find it odd to announce something like this at a developer conference...
If I was a music discovery aficionado, it might make sense. Otherwise, for me - I'm 'fee planned' up! Apple radio or other internet radio stations are just fine.
you missed the fact that this subscription based streaming service lets user to stream every music that apple has permission to stream even though they didn't buy it
So basically it is 110 songs that you can listen even if you are offline VS listening music over ten thousands of songs only if you are online or offline (since subsription based streaming has offline playlist feature, you can just download music without extra cost)
I might have not been clear. I pointed out that for that money, Apple offers three options (one being the one you just highlighted), which depend on your tastes. I prefer to buy a dozen songs, or 2-3 albums a month, listen the **** out of them (as in, I literally put the albums on repeat for days), and then end the month running random on some of my playlists depending on the mood. Others may prefer other options.
It's a big world, with many tastes. I was celebrating more options ^^
Not sure why I would pay $10/mo. for the option to specify a specific song or album. Chances are I'd already have bought it and would just play my copy. The free iTunes Radio and my handful of customized stations works just fine. However, they really need to make iTunes Radio work through a browser as well as iTunes. Right now, I can't use it on my work computer (no iTunes installed), so I use Pandora instead.
I'm with you on this one. I tried Spotify, but could not stomach $10 a month for music. I love iTunes Radio and I've tuned my 12 or so stations really well. I have iTunes Match-no commercials and use my iPhone for iTunes Radio, my own music, and podcasts at work. I pair my iPhone with a small Bluetooth speaker (Sony SRS BTV 5). Works great for me. Desktop computer speakers tend to suck. This one's good enough, but cheap enough to be replaceable. I bought a few of them for home and office.
I'm sure there will be offline listening capabilities just like the current Beats music app and Spotify.
Can Spotify properly clear your offline playlist cache on iPhone? It couldn't when I used it a couple years ago and that was the main reason I gave it up. I won't pay $10 per month without being able to easily send playlists to offline mode and easily move those playlists from the cache. The playlists continued to take up space on my then 16GB iPhone 4S-no bueno. The only remedy was to uninstall and reinstall the app to clear the cache. If Beats/Apple Music can maintain a clean cache, I'd reconsider, otherwise, I wouldn't feel I truly had access to the "unlimited" music.
And about a billion dollars a year in headphone revenue. Apple likely is closing in on recouping that $3 billion from Beats headphones, earphones, and speakers.
Are they sure they aren't going to use the Beats brand name right away? What would be the purpose of acquiring them if you're not going to capitalize on the brand recognition (plus the likes of Iovine, Dre and Reznor, who I understand will play a big part in their new service)?
I think it would make more sense to bring over the users from iTunes Radio into Beats and consolidate all their music offerings under Beats.
I've wondered about this...Beats has a bit too much of a Bass-y connotation. I'm not sure that classical music lovers, for instance, will be too comfortable with "Beats".
pmz wrote: »
The headphone business justified the entire purchase by itself
It was more the other way around. Iovine has proven time and time again he can take a company and increase its value through the roof in just a few years. He's the most Jobs-like corporate person in the US in that his eyes are on things that are years away from being formed enough for most others to even know what they are, and he knows what people want. Just as Apple created the mobile device mp3 driven market that they still dominate, even though they didn't create any part of the technology, Iovine created the mass appeal status symbol headphone marketplace, which Beats ruled, that didn't exist before.
As far as the headphones themselves, their value was in Apple getting a direct line to their huge user base, not so much in manufacturing new headphones to sell them. Otherwise they would have bought it and had it continue as it had, just letting it be under their umbrella. Apple has other things it wants to sell them, and they like the idea that they pay more for shiny externals and perceived superiority, same as us Apple users. But it's perfect for them that the Beats customer's profile isn't exactly the same as the Apple user's. They're not banking on selling them millions of MacBook Airs, they're looking at selling them things in three years that we don't even know about now. I don't get a sense at all that the headphone will play more than a cursory role in the big picture.
why? beats me...
Based on that, it'll likely be $13 Australian.
No thanks Apple. I won't pay that.