While the iTunes moniker is so entrnched in our lexicon, this is probably as good as a time to move onto a fresh name.
The move away from the 'i' prefix has been long and long overdue.
The original thinking behind the "i" prefix still exists and the iTunes name is likely worth a ton of money in "recognition factor" alone. There are lots and lots of companies that would give just about anything to have that kind of worldwide recognition. I may be wrong, but I think it would be a terrible mistake to not keep that name in one way or another. Just my 2? worth.
Wonder how iTunes Match fits in with this picture. Will that end up as another abandoned Apple service, or will Apple continue to offer a music locker option alongside the streaming service?
About one-third of my music on iTunes Match is not available in the iTunes Store, and I have a lot of other high res music files that have been uploaded to Apple's servers (my transfers sound much better than the versions on iTunes). Does the transition over to Apple Music now relegate my playlists strictly to whatever Apple has the rights to? Yes, it expands my options. But, right now I have access to tracks from my full digital music collection (still have about 300 LPs left to transfer to AIFF format, most of which are not available in the iTunes Store) anytime I want.
This main issue that I have with any streaming service is that if the service goes away, or if future rights negotiations result in large portions of the library selections disappearing, then there goes your music.
If Apple wants to supplement the service with a streaming option, then I'm open to trying it out. But, as it stands, I'm actually very content with paying $25/year to have my entire music library available on the go, and having ad-free iTunes Radio along for the ride.
Wonder how iTunes Match fits in with this picture. Will that end up as another abandoned Apple service, or will Apple continue to offer a music locker option alongside the streaming service?
About one-third of my music on iTunes Match is not available in the iTunes Store, and I have a lot of other high res music files that have been uploaded to Apple's servers (my transfers sound much better than the versions on iTunes). Does the transition over to Apple Music now relegate my playlists strictly to whatever Apple has the rights to? Yes, it expands my options. But, right now I have access to tracks from my full digital music collection (still have about 300 LPs left to transfer to AIFF format, most of which are not available in the iTunes Store) anytime I want.
This main issue that I have with any streaming service is that if the service goes away, or if future rights negotiations result in large portions of the library selections disappearing, then there goes your music.
If Apple wants to supplement the service with a streaming option, then I'm open to trying it out. But, as it stands, I'm actually very content with paying $25/year to have my entire music library available on the go, and having ad-free iTunes Radio along for the ride.
I don't believe iTunes will go away, people forget that streaming is increasing in revenue but downloads are still big business. So I think iTunes Match will be safe, and it's possible that the AppleMusic service will replace iTR as a Match benefit.
It will be kind of weird if Apple's streaming music service has a smaller selection of music than iTunes store does.
Think about how Netflix has a larger selection of titles available through their disc mailers than their streaming service, and how large chunks of their streaming titles "expire" at the end of every month. Not that far fetched to see a similar scenario happen with music.
What do you think has been going on for the last, what, 50 years or more. Free music by this thing called am and fm radio all free and supported by ad's!!!. Yet the music industry continued to grow over the years. How can that be with people getting all that fee music, and later on copying that music into cassette tapes?
Tell me, what's the difference from streaming from fm radio or streaming from the internet?. It's the exact same thing with ad's for both!!!. There is none!!!
Huh! Do you actually use streaming services. probably not because you'd know how fracking wrong what you just said was. The difference is that your getting exactly the same thing as purchasing the song, except with a commercial. Are you telling me you have a direct line to the DJ playlist at a radio station? So, not, its not the same. If I like a few god damn artists and don't want to listen to anything else (that deviates a bit from them); radio won'T give that to me.
Think about how Netflix has a larger selection of titles available through their disc mailers than their streaming service, and how large chunks of their streaming titles "expire" at the end of every month. Not that far fetched to see a similar scenario happen with music.
I really fail to see anything unique that Apple could bring to this party. I couldn't care less about Jimmy Iovine's hand picked artists to curate music for me. As I said before I see this as being a money pit for apple.
If that's the case then why does it need to be Apple? Spotify can do that.
- I'd bet that Apple will always have a better selection of music and will be far less likely to lose (or never have) popular artists than Spotify, simply because of their market position (I don't like Taylor Swift, but if I did like her I wouldn't be able to listen to her on Spotify). That alone would make it worth more to me than Spotify.
The rest I can't comment on until Apple makes any announcement, but a few other possibilities are:
- Apple ecosystem. It's likely Apples music App/service will be tightly integrated across all your devices (and possible future devices) better than any third party App could.
- Family Sharing. Spotify wants an extra 50% for each family member you add. Apple has already allowed families to share purchases, so I can't see them starting to charge extra for their streaming service.
- App quality. Spotify doesn't have the best record as far as resources/memory/battery usage. Apples own "App" would likely be more efficient that anyone else, having low-level access to your device to make it as lightweight as possible.
I really fail to see anything unique that Apple could bring to this party. I couldn't care less about Jimmy Iovine's hand picked artists to curate music for me. As I said before I see this as being a money pit for apple.
Why do they have to do anything unique? Should Apple give up Safari for iOS because there are other browsers out there? Get rid of their built-in e-mail App because of all the other e-mail Apps?
Why can't Apple just offer a good, competitive service and let the people decide which one they want to use?
I'll be interested in seeing what is offered and what could entice me and others towards a payment of $10 @ month. iTunes radio has been fine for me but can see how it would be helpful for Apple's bottom line to link songs with purchase ability.
Why do they have to do anything unique? Should Apple give up Safari for iOS because there are other browsers out there? Get rid of their built-in e-mail App because of all the other e-mail Apps?
Why can't Apple just offer a good, competitive service and let the people decide which one they want to use?
Because if Apple doesn't fucking re-invent the wheel with every single thing that they do, they don't deserve to exist and the company should be liquidated. This is the mentality so many "Apple fans" posess. No, it's not even enough if its better than everything else out there. It needs to be completely "unique" in every single aspect. Because, you know, that's just such a realistic and plausible thing.
BTW, when is BF returning to AI? It's about time for us to show some critical thinking against this sea of blind pro-Cook unanimity.
Are you so deeply and utterly deluded that you think that either you or BF have ever exhibited "critical thinking" when it comes to Apple or Cook on this board? Or is that statement just part of your troll act? Your "critical thinking" is akin to what a Klan member's opinion is of a black person- that's the kind of depth your criticisms entail, which include nothing but seething, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred against Cook in every single circumstance, and spouting lie after lie to negative the massive positives, and magnify the irrelevant negatives. Not to mention that the only person you define as having "critical thinking" is someone who every single person on this board (except you) considers a massive troll. But you have it right and everyone else has it wrong, right?
I hope you also realize that not a single person here believes you're a practicing lawyer, but rather someone who is depressed, unemployed, and needs to direct their rage and their hatred somewhere. No lawyer would be pathetic enough to spend all their time trolling a company and a person they've never met (Tim Cook) like you do. Nor do they have enough time to desperately refresh a site so they can post the first hateful response to every article (like yours in this one) Also, lawyers don't tend to be so insecure as to use the word "lawyer" in their screen names. But hey, keep fantasizing. It's not Cook's fault he's leading the most successful company on the planet, is loved by millions, and you're a complete nobody. It's really not, so stop taking it out on him. Maybe if you spent half the time you spend on this board hating against everything Apple actually doing something productive, you would find a modicum of success and happiness yourself.
Why do they have to do anything unique? Should Apple give up Safari for iOS because there are other browsers out there? Get rid of their built-in e-mail App because of all the other e-mail Apps?
Why can't Apple just offer a good, competitive service and let the people decide which one they want to use?
Because if Apple doesn't fucking re-invent the wheel with every single thing that they do, they don't deserve to exist and the company should be liquidated. This is the mentality so many "Apple fans" posess. No, it's not even enough if its better than everything else out there. It needs to be completely "unique" in every single aspect. Because, you know, that's just such a realistic and plausible thing.
Isn't that exactly what everything Apple makes is claimed to be?
- I'd bet that Apple will always have a better selection of music and will be far less likely to lose (or never have) popular artists than Spotify, simply because of their market position (I don't like Taylor Swift, but if I did like her I wouldn't be able to listen to her on Spotify). That alone would make it worth more to me than Spotify.
The rest I can't comment on until Apple makes any announcement, but a few other possibilities are:
- Apple ecosystem. It's likely Apples music App/service will be tightly integrated across all your devices (and possible future devices) better than any third party App could.
- Family Sharing. Spotify wants an extra 50% for each family member you add. Apple has already allowed families to share purchases, so I can't see them starting to charge extra for their streaming service.
- App quality. Spotify doesn't have the best record as far as resources/memory/battery usage. Apples own "App" would likely be more efficient that anyone else, having low-level access to your device to make it as lightweight as possible.
With your first point about the ecosystem and better than third party apps I disagree. I use Google Play Music and can play it simply for any device just as easily. Everything else tho I can see your point.
Why do they have to do anything unique? Should Apple give up Safari for iOS because there are other browsers out there? Get rid of their built-in e-mail App because of all the other e-mail Apps?
Why can't Apple just offer a good, competitive service and let the people decide which one they want to use?
I think maybe because this will be a paid subscription and not a free app.
While the iTunes moniker is so entrnched in our lexicon, this is probably as good as a time to move onto a fresh name.
The move away from the 'i' prefix has been long and long overdue.
The whole i thing has at times just been a hassle to Copyright around the world and then Apple has to end up paying someone to use it. I'm sure at this point, anyone and everyone has copyrighted anything they could think of with a i in front in the hopes Apple would need the name. I'd be fine if Apple changed the name of the iPhone and iPad to Apple Phone and Apple Pad and AppleOS.
Comments
While the iTunes moniker is so entrnched in our lexicon, this is probably as good as a time to move onto a fresh name.
The move away from the 'i' prefix has been long and long overdue.
The original thinking behind the "i" prefix still exists and the iTunes name is likely worth a ton of money in "recognition factor" alone. There are lots and lots of companies that would give just about anything to have that kind of worldwide recognition. I may be wrong, but I think it would be a terrible mistake to not keep that name in one way or another. Just my 2? worth.
Because it's from Apple, so it sounds better. ????
Wonder how iTunes Match fits in with this picture. Will that end up as another abandoned Apple service, or will Apple continue to offer a music locker option alongside the streaming service?
About one-third of my music on iTunes Match is not available in the iTunes Store, and I have a lot of other high res music files that have been uploaded to Apple's servers (my transfers sound much better than the versions on iTunes). Does the transition over to Apple Music now relegate my playlists strictly to whatever Apple has the rights to? Yes, it expands my options. But, right now I have access to tracks from my full digital music collection (still have about 300 LPs left to transfer to AIFF format, most of which are not available in the iTunes Store) anytime I want.
This main issue that I have with any streaming service is that if the service goes away, or if future rights negotiations result in large portions of the library selections disappearing, then there goes your music.
If Apple wants to supplement the service with a streaming option, then I'm open to trying it out. But, as it stands, I'm actually very content with paying $25/year to have my entire music library available on the go, and having ad-free iTunes Radio along for the ride.
It's all about licensing.
I don't believe iTunes will go away, people forget that streaming is increasing in revenue but downloads are still big business. So I think iTunes Match will be safe, and it's possible that the AppleMusic service will replace iTR as a Match benefit.
It will be kind of weird if Apple's streaming music service has a smaller selection of music than iTunes store does.
Think about how Netflix has a larger selection of titles available through their disc mailers than their streaming service, and how large chunks of their streaming titles "expire" at the end of every month. Not that far fetched to see a similar scenario happen with music.
What do you think has been going on for the last, what, 50 years or more. Free music by this thing called am and fm radio all free and supported by ad's!!!. Yet the music industry continued to grow over the years. How can that be with people getting all that fee music, and later on copying that music into cassette tapes?
Tell me, what's the difference from streaming from fm radio or streaming from the internet?. It's the exact same thing with ad's for both!!!. There is none!!!
Huh! Do you actually use streaming services. probably not because you'd know how fracking wrong what you just said was. The difference is that your getting exactly the same thing as purchasing the song, except with a commercial. Are you telling me you have a direct line to the DJ playlist at a radio station? So, not, its not the same. If I like a few god damn artists and don't want to listen to anything else (that deviates a bit from them); radio won'T give that to me.
I really fail to see anything unique that Apple could bring to this party. I couldn't care less about Jimmy Iovine's hand picked artists to curate music for me. As I said before I see this as being a money pit for apple.
If that's the case then why does it need to be Apple? Spotify can do that.
- I'd bet that Apple will always have a better selection of music and will be far less likely to lose (or never have) popular artists than Spotify, simply because of their market position (I don't like Taylor Swift, but if I did like her I wouldn't be able to listen to her on Spotify). That alone would make it worth more to me than Spotify.
The rest I can't comment on until Apple makes any announcement, but a few other possibilities are:
- Apple ecosystem. It's likely Apples music App/service will be tightly integrated across all your devices (and possible future devices) better than any third party App could.
- Family Sharing. Spotify wants an extra 50% for each family member you add. Apple has already allowed families to share purchases, so I can't see them starting to charge extra for their streaming service.
- App quality. Spotify doesn't have the best record as far as resources/memory/battery usage. Apples own "App" would likely be more efficient that anyone else, having low-level access to your device to make it as lightweight as possible.
I really fail to see anything unique that Apple could bring to this party. I couldn't care less about Jimmy Iovine's hand picked artists to curate music for me. As I said before I see this as being a money pit for apple.
Why do they have to do anything unique? Should Apple give up Safari for iOS because there are other browsers out there? Get rid of their built-in e-mail App because of all the other e-mail Apps?
Why can't Apple just offer a good, competitive service and let the people decide which one they want to use?
Why do they have to do anything unique? Should Apple give up Safari for iOS because there are other browsers out there? Get rid of their built-in e-mail App because of all the other e-mail Apps?
Why can't Apple just offer a good, competitive service and let the people decide which one they want to use?
Because if Apple doesn't fucking re-invent the wheel with every single thing that they do, they don't deserve to exist and the company should be liquidated. This is the mentality so many "Apple fans" posess. No, it's not even enough if its better than everything else out there. It needs to be completely "unique" in every single aspect. Because, you know, that's just such a realistic and plausible thing.
BTW, when is BF returning to AI? It's about time for us to show some critical thinking against this sea of blind pro-Cook unanimity.
Are you so deeply and utterly deluded that you think that either you or BF have ever exhibited "critical thinking" when it comes to Apple or Cook on this board? Or is that statement just part of your troll act? Your "critical thinking" is akin to what a Klan member's opinion is of a black person- that's the kind of depth your criticisms entail, which include nothing but seething, foaming-at-the-mouth hatred against Cook in every single circumstance, and spouting lie after lie to negative the massive positives, and magnify the irrelevant negatives. Not to mention that the only person you define as having "critical thinking" is someone who every single person on this board (except you) considers a massive troll. But you have it right and everyone else has it wrong, right?
I hope you also realize that not a single person here believes you're a practicing lawyer, but rather someone who is depressed, unemployed, and needs to direct their rage and their hatred somewhere. No lawyer would be pathetic enough to spend all their time trolling a company and a person they've never met (Tim Cook) like you do. Nor do they have enough time to desperately refresh a site so they can post the first hateful response to every article (like yours in this one) Also, lawyers don't tend to be so insecure as to use the word "lawyer" in their screen names. But hey, keep fantasizing. It's not Cook's fault he's leading the most successful company on the planet, is loved by millions, and you're a complete nobody. It's really not, so stop taking it out on him. Maybe if you spent half the time you spend on this board hating against everything Apple actually doing something productive, you would find a modicum of success and happiness yourself.
Isn't that exactly what everything Apple makes is claimed to be?
With your first point about the ecosystem and better than third party apps I disagree. I use Google Play Music and can play it simply for any device just as easily. Everything else tho I can see your point.
I think maybe because this will be a paid subscription and not a free app.
If I were Apple, I’d delay the Music announcement simply to demonstrate that Doug Morris
"Spotify has never really advertised because it's never been profitable."
So free advertisement by "word of mouth" is bad.
Burning cash "like crazy" is good.
While the iTunes moniker is so entrnched in our lexicon, this is probably as good as a time to move onto a fresh name.
The move away from the 'i' prefix has been long and long overdue.
The whole i thing has at times just been a hassle to Copyright around the world and then Apple has to end up paying someone to use it. I'm sure at this point, anyone and everyone has copyrighted anything they could think of with a i in front in the hopes Apple would need the name. I'd be fine if Apple changed the name of the iPhone and iPad to Apple Phone and Apple Pad and AppleOS.