What I'm looking for is curated playlists. Beats has them. Radio has them. Spotify has them. I still don't see any sign of them on Apple's Music service.
'The app has a My Music section, which has a "For You" feature that provides recommendations of artists and curated radio playlists to users. Apple Senior Vice President Eddy Cue explained that For You wasn't just algorithmically driven, that it also involved human curators.'
- Connect reminds me of Ping, and I have to roll my eyes at Apple once again thinking they are going convince anyone to use it.
- Iovine and Drake were embarassments and should not have been allowed on stage.
- $9.99 is just wrong. The only thing that would have swayed loyal Spotify users would have been price. Fail.
- A global radio station is a big deal? What? What kind of Time Warp is this? Radio is dead. No one wants that. On Demand music killed Radio a long time ago. Apple was the one that killed it. I can't believe they think anyone will care about this. The only kind of "radio" I find interesting is what we already have: iTunes Radio, where its curated by me.
- Why would I want to rent music for $9.99/mon? I've never been convinced of the value in this. I have a library of songs well over my 25,000 limit in iTunes (Match). At the very most, I might add $10/mon of new music to that library. At most. You give me free access to the entire iTunes Store, I'm not suddenly going on a shopping spree. I OWN most of the music I want to listen to. And unfortunately, most of the new music I buy doesn't even come from the iTunes Store, as its not distributed there (no FLAC).
I'm fairly certain I will not be subscribing, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
What I'm looking for is curated playlists. Beats has them. Radio has them. Spotify has them. I still don't see any sign of them on Apple's Music service.
The entire For You section is just that. It will probably be even better than the competition. But is that any reason for someone to switch? You can't market that.
(Keep in mind, I'm not talking about informed people like us...I'm thinking about the tens of millions of Spotify users that do not know nor care about competing services)
The entire For You section is just that. It will probably be even better than the competition. But is that any reason for someone to switch? You can't market that.
(Keep in mind, I'm not talking about informed people like us...I'm thinking about the tens of millions of Spotify users that do not know nor care about competing services)
Apple has an ever expanding base of device purchasers that will by default have iTunes at their fingertips. The very worst possible scenario I could see for Apple is gaining tens of millions of subscribers, while Spotify's new subscriber base sharply declines.
The price that Apple bought Beats for is going to seem like a bargain pretty quickly.
The entire For You section is just that. It will probably be even better than the competition. But is that any reason for someone to switch? You can't market that.
As I already pointed out, "For You" sounds suspiciously similar to Beats' "Just For You". It is a rolling list of albums and playlists recommended based on your listening habits, and generally based on broad music genres. I have never found these to contain anything fresh and new for me. For example, right now this section is offering me albums by Blur and SBTRKT and some playlists named "Indie Hits 2005" and "Indie Hits 2010". yes, I like the music these contain, but for me they're all played out and don't contain anything new. Also consciously absent are any recommendations in electronica and dance.
However, Beats and Spotify also have a "Curators" section, which feature huge libraries of playlists curated by many different people under many different genres and sub-genres of music. This is where I find great new music and this seems conspicuously absent form Apple's music offering, based on what I've seen so far. Right now there are over a dozen playlists with great dance music that's less than a year old, much of which I haven't heard before.
And yes, of course you can market that. That is the best feature these services have. The fact that you're unfamiliar with this and think it's a trivial feature suggests you're not really much into music and are probably content to listen to whatever happens to be playing on the radio at any given time. Commercial radio is perfect for you or perhaps an upcoming Apple playlist titled "Dad Music.".
I am surprised that Apple Insider of all places did not listen to what was being said and realize what Apple launched at the WWDC keynote.
It wasn't a streaming service competitor.
It was a competitor to the Labels.
The target audience being spoken to were the musicians, not music buyers. Specifically if you listen they constantly spoke about the independents, new artists, being discovered, even promoted the small and Drake spoke about how he became big via some "different way" (direct). Jimmy also said why Apple bought Beats, not for the brand, not for their streaming service, but for this idea that was pitched, which was this "new way" for the industry, for artists. They even reframed "being discovered" which used to mean being picked up by a Label.
Make your music in your room using Apple devices.
Publish your music through Apple Music easily and available on every device.
Get discovered by potential fans through their algorithmic choices
Sell your music easily
Get played in 100 countries on our global radio station. Beats "One" will be first of many
Get paid by Apple Music and get a bigger cut than if you were with a label
Keep your audience engaged and ready to buy your next track, album or concert
Stay independent and own your own relationship with your audience.
Old music is all tied up by Labels, they control it and have devalued it to being a commodity because to them it is coins by volume sales. Which doesn't work for Artists, but that doesn't effect the labels.
Really who cares if you have The Beatles or even Taylor Swift. They are the past.
You see - the biggest market for listening to and purchasing music is what is yet to come, both in terms of buyers and artists. The next artists are going to come up through a different method, on a different platform and work with a different label.
Apple won't need exclusives and to cut deals. Artists coming up now will already be in a deep relationship with Apple.
Apple Music
Totally agree. This was Steve's vision also - empower artists with technology. This is NOT Spotify streaming replacement or an attempt at reviving Ping. It IS a different way for all artists to be heard, and for all listeners to connect and hear their efforts. It's going to be interesting to see how this is embraced by both artists and listeners.
The fact that you're unfamiliar with this and think it's a trivial feature suggests you're not really much into music and are probably content to listen to whatever happens to be playing on the radio at any given time.
Just shut the **** up.
I am having an intelligent conversation here, and you just crossed into idiot territory. You are being intentionally dense to create argument and its no longer interesting.
Totally agree. This was Steve's vision also - empower artists with technology. This is NOT Spotify streaming replacement or an attempt at reviving Ping. It IS a different way for all artists to be heard, and for all listeners to connect and hear their efforts. It's going to be interesting to see how this is embraced by both artists and listeners.
Yes indeed it is ALL of those things...shrouded in the mystique and promise of what it can do for future artists.
Guess what? People have to care, and hand over money to Apple, long before any of the fairytale ideas take shape.
Here's what I wish Apple would of done with music.
The announcement should've been no more than 15 minutes tops of the entire keynote.
Just Eddy Cue on stage announcing an Apple streaming service and covering off the main points. No Jimmy Iovine, no Drake, no Zane Lowe videos.
Streaming access to nearly anything you can buy on iTunes (perhaps highlight music available here that isn't available elsewhere)
Incorporate iTunes Match (and match what Google Play Music offers); ability to create offline playlists like Spotify
If the labels wouldn't let Apple offer a free or reduced price tier then incorporate iTunes Radio (maybe rebrand it to Beats Radio) and make that your "free" offering
$9.99 or 14.99 for families; emphasize the number of countries it will be available in at launch
That's it. That's all Apple Music needs to be. None of this social network crap (leave social to Facebook). Skip the 24/7 radio station. I can launch TuneIn and listen to over 40K live radio stations whenever I want. Apple Music will come preinstalled on all ios devices. It doesn't need to be revolutionary or unique to get people to try it out and to get some to subscribe.
Music is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Financially it's going to be a blip on the top and bottom line. Apple should not expend a lot of time and energy over this. The fact that the length of the keynote veered into Google I/O territory mostly because ~40 minutes was spent on music concerns me. There are so many things more important than streaming music. I would have taken a longer demo of iOS 9 over Eddy Cue playing random snippits of music for 20 minutes.
Totally agree. This was Steve's vision also - empower artists with technology. This is NOT Spotify streaming replacement or an attempt at reviving Ping. It IS a different way for all artists to be heard, and for all listeners to connect and hear their efforts. It's going to be interesting to see how this is embraced by both artists and listeners.
Totally disagree. Apple should be focusing on bigger things than music. They should not be spending a lot of time, energy and money on this. Offer up a streaming service that's competitive with Spotify and Google Play Music and be done with it. None of this social network and radio station crap. A thousand noes for every yes. Eddy Cue needs a big poster of that in his office.
As I already pointed out, "For You" sounds suspiciously similar to Beats' "Just For You". It is a rolling list of albums and playlists recommended based on your listening habits, and generally based on broad music genres. I have never found these to contain anything fresh and new for me. For example, right now this section is offering me albums by Blur and SBTRKT and some playlists named "Indie Hits 2005" and "Indie Hits 2010". yes, I like the music these contain, but for me they're all played out and don't contain anything new. Also consciously absent are any recommendations in electronica and dance.
However, Beats and Spotify also have a "Curators" section, which feature huge libraries of playlists curated by many different people under many different genres and sub-genres of music. This is where I find great new music and this seems conspicuously absent form Apple's music offering, based on what I've seen so far. Right now there are over a dozen playlists with great dance music that's less than a year old, much of which I haven't heard before.
And yes, of course you can market that. That is the best feature these services have. The fact that you're unfamiliar with this and think it's a trivial feature suggests you're not really much into music and are probably content to listen to whatever happens to be playing on the radio at any given time. Commercial radio is perfect for you or perhaps an upcoming Apple playlist titled "Dad Music.".
There will be curated playlists and recommendations. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise when it's so explicit in the keynotes.
(I captured Apple website for you but it's so damn hard uploading photo to this site. The server is shit. Check it out yourself at apple.com)
'The app has a My Music section, which has a "For You" feature that provides recommendations of artists and curated radio playlists to users. Apple Senior Vice President Eddy Cue explained that For You wasn't just algorithmically driven, that it also involved human curators.'
Look, we're all going to have to wait until the service is launched to see whether we like it or not. I'm just expressing some concern that it won't meet my expectations based on what's been shown so far.
Why do I think this?
Well, a lot of what's been demo'd for Apple Music looks like re-branded features from Beats Music, right down to the bubble interface that asks you to select favorite genres and artists when the service is first set up. Also, Apple Music's "For You" section sounds a whole lot like Beats' "Just For You." So given these close similarities, I'm making some assumptions about how these features will work on Apple's Music service.
Now, I have been using Beats Music for about a year, and I have not found the "Just For You" feature to be particularly helpful for me. It tends to recommend older songs and omits some of the music genres I like most, despite my listening history and initial music preferences setup. If I want to hear older music, frankly I can do that on my own. For me the benefit of "curation" is to help me discover new music and "Just For You" doesn't cut it.
But that's where Beats' "Curators" section comes in. It is an entirely separate section where you can browse a list of curators, each specializing in a particular type of music. There are even different curators specializing in the same types of music, so you always have variety. When you follow one of these curators, you get notifications every time they publish a new playlist. In my experience, these curators provide exactly what I wanted: playlists containing new music curated by DJs who share my taste in music.
So far, Apple has not revealed anything that sounds quite like this.
If the labels wouldn't let Apple offer a free or reduced price tier then incorporate iTunes Radio (maybe rebrand it to Beats Radio) and make that your "free" offering
You can play offline playlists.
You still have iTunes Radio and can create any station you want.
- Connect reminds me of Ping, and I have to roll my eyes at Apple once again thinking they are going convince anyone to use it.
- Iovine and Drake were embarassments and should not have been allowed on stage.
- $9.99 is just wrong. The only thing that would have swayed loyal Spotify users would have been price. Fail.
- A global radio station is a big deal? What? What kind of Time Warp is this? Radio is dead. No one wants that. On Demand music killed Radio a long time ago. Apple was the one that killed it. I can't believe they think anyone will care about this. The only kind of "radio" I find interesting is what we already have: iTunes Radio, where its curated by me.
- Why would I want to rent music for $9.99/mon? I've never been convinced of the value in this. I have a library of songs well over my 25,000 limit in iTunes (Match). At the very most, I might add $10/mon of new music to that library. At most. You give me free access to the entire iTunes Store, I'm not suddenly going on a shopping spree. I OWN most of the music I want to listen to. And unfortunately, most of the new music I buy doesn't even come from the iTunes Store, as its not distributed there (no FLAC).
I'm fairly certain I will not be subscribing, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
No, you're not alone in that, but compared to the number of people who disagree with most of that, who will subscribe, you're almost alone.
There will be curated playlists and recommendations. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise when it's so explicit in the keynotes.
(I captured Apple website for you but it's so damn hard uploading photo to this site. The server is shit. Check it out yourself at apple.com)
If you had read my comments more carefully, you might understand the distinction I'm making between the sort of music curation I'm looking for vs. the type that's been described by Apple.
If you had read my comments more carefully, you might understand the distinction I'm making between the sort of music curation I'm looking for vs. the type that's been described by Apple.
I read it carefully and I think you're the one who confused. Just because Apple put curated playlists in For You doesn't mean For You = Beat's For You. You are the only one who think that despite all the explicit explanations from Apple both at keynote and on official site.
I'm still not seeing anything to replace Beats Music's Curator Playlists.
Connect is irrelevant, as nobody cares about this besides Apple and recording artists.
For You sounds exactly the same thing as Beats' "Just For You" screen. In my experience, that feature didn't do all that great at recommending music, focusing way too much on older music and bigger hits while seemingly ignoring the songs I actually favorited and played most often, most recently. More importantly, this feature failed to help me discover any new music.
That leaves Beats 1, which sounds like it's going to be a mish-mash of different genres and tempos. While this may offer an opportunity to discover new music, it will likely be a passive radiolistening experience with no way to filter out what you don't like. I don't have the patience to sit through 20 generic "pop" or "R&B" tracks in the hopes of hearing one good indie or house song I like. Incidentally, I certainly hope the DJs for Beats 1 weren't responsible for selecting the music that played before and during the WWDC keynote. If that's what we can expect from their radio service<span style="line-height:1.4em;">, it will be even worse than I expected.</span>
Pretty sure I'm going to have to switch back to Spotify.
I read it carefully and I think you're the one who confused. Just because Apple put curated playlists in For You doesn't mean For You = Beat's For You. You are the only one who think that.
Do you use Beats Music? If the answer is no, then you have no basis for judging whether I'm confused about anything.
What you may not realize is that most of the "new" music features shown off at the Apple event were lifted directly from Beats Music. From the emphasis on human curation over computer algorithms, to the bubbly interface that asks you what kinds of music you like most, Apple didn't invent any of this. They purchased this intellectual property via their acquisition of Beats. So a lot of what you saw as new features, I see merely as a re-branding of what I've already been enjoying for the last twelve months.
Now I realize that Apple's "For You" may turn out to be different from Beats' "Just For You". In fact, that is my only hope that this new service will be any good. But I think the odds are that the two will be more similar than different.
Comments
What I'm looking for is curated playlists. Beats has them. Radio has them. Spotify has them. I still don't see any sign of them on Apple's Music service.
'The app has a My Music section, which has a "For You" feature that provides recommendations of artists and curated radio playlists to users. Apple Senior Vice President Eddy Cue explained that For You wasn't just algorithmically driven, that it also involved human curators.'
http://mashable.com/2015/06/08/apple-music
Neither of them listens to OneRepublic or Lady Gaga. Or Taylor Swift.
But, as I said, just two data points.....
Thoughts:
- Connect reminds me of Ping, and I have to roll my eyes at Apple once again thinking they are going convince anyone to use it.
- Iovine and Drake were embarassments and should not have been allowed on stage.
- $9.99 is just wrong. The only thing that would have swayed loyal Spotify users would have been price. Fail.
- A global radio station is a big deal? What? What kind of Time Warp is this? Radio is dead. No one wants that. On Demand music killed Radio a long time ago. Apple was the one that killed it. I can't believe they think anyone will care about this. The only kind of "radio" I find interesting is what we already have: iTunes Radio, where its curated by me.
- Why would I want to rent music for $9.99/mon? I've never been convinced of the value in this. I have a library of songs well over my 25,000 limit in iTunes (Match). At the very most, I might add $10/mon of new music to that library. At most. You give me free access to the entire iTunes Store, I'm not suddenly going on a shopping spree. I OWN most of the music I want to listen to. And unfortunately, most of the new music I buy doesn't even come from the iTunes Store, as its not distributed there (no FLAC).
I'm fairly certain I will not be subscribing, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
What I'm looking for is curated playlists. Beats has them. Radio has them. Spotify has them. I still don't see any sign of them on Apple's Music service.
The entire For You section is just that. It will probably be even better than the competition. But is that any reason for someone to switch? You can't market that.
(Keep in mind, I'm not talking about informed people like us...I'm thinking about the tens of millions of Spotify users that do not know nor care about competing services)
The entire For You section is just that. It will probably be even better than the competition. But is that any reason for someone to switch? You can't market that.
(Keep in mind, I'm not talking about informed people like us...I'm thinking about the tens of millions of Spotify users that do not know nor care about competing services)
Apple has an ever expanding base of device purchasers that will by default have iTunes at their fingertips. The very worst possible scenario I could see for Apple is gaining tens of millions of subscribers, while Spotify's new subscriber base sharply declines.
The price that Apple bought Beats for is going to seem like a bargain pretty quickly.
The entire For You section is just that. It will probably be even better than the competition. But is that any reason for someone to switch? You can't market that.
As I already pointed out, "For You" sounds suspiciously similar to Beats' "Just For You". It is a rolling list of albums and playlists recommended based on your listening habits, and generally based on broad music genres. I have never found these to contain anything fresh and new for me. For example, right now this section is offering me albums by Blur and SBTRKT and some playlists named "Indie Hits 2005" and "Indie Hits 2010". yes, I like the music these contain, but for me they're all played out and don't contain anything new. Also consciously absent are any recommendations in electronica and dance.
However, Beats and Spotify also have a "Curators" section, which feature huge libraries of playlists curated by many different people under many different genres and sub-genres of music. This is where I find great new music and this seems conspicuously absent form Apple's music offering, based on what I've seen so far. Right now there are over a dozen playlists with great dance music that's less than a year old, much of which I haven't heard before.
And yes, of course you can market that. That is the best feature these services have. The fact that you're unfamiliar with this and think it's a trivial feature suggests you're not really much into music and are probably content to listen to whatever happens to be playing on the radio at any given time. Commercial radio is perfect for you or perhaps an upcoming Apple playlist titled "Dad Music.".
I am surprised that Apple Insider of all places did not listen to what was being said and realize what Apple launched at the WWDC keynote.
It wasn't a streaming service competitor.
It was a competitor to the Labels.
The target audience being spoken to were the musicians, not music buyers. Specifically if you listen they constantly spoke about the independents, new artists, being discovered, even promoted the small and Drake spoke about how he became big via some "different way" (direct). Jimmy also said why Apple bought Beats, not for the brand, not for their streaming service, but for this idea that was pitched, which was this "new way" for the industry, for artists. They even reframed "being discovered" which used to mean being picked up by a Label.
Old music is all tied up by Labels, they control it and have devalued it to being a commodity because to them it is coins by volume sales. Which doesn't work for Artists, but that doesn't effect the labels.
Really who cares if you have The Beatles or even Taylor Swift. They are the past.
You see - the biggest market for listening to and purchasing music is what is yet to come, both in terms of buyers and artists. The next artists are going to come up through a different method, on a different platform and work with a different label.
Apple won't need exclusives and to cut deals. Artists coming up now will already be in a deep relationship with Apple.
Apple Music
Totally agree. This was Steve's vision also - empower artists with technology. This is NOT Spotify streaming replacement or an attempt at reviving Ping. It IS a different way for all artists to be heard, and for all listeners to connect and hear their efforts. It's going to be interesting to see how this is embraced by both artists and listeners.
The fact that you're unfamiliar with this and think it's a trivial feature suggests you're not really much into music and are probably content to listen to whatever happens to be playing on the radio at any given time.
Just shut the **** up.
I am having an intelligent conversation here, and you just crossed into idiot territory. You are being intentionally dense to create argument and its no longer interesting.
Totally agree. This was Steve's vision also - empower artists with technology. This is NOT Spotify streaming replacement or an attempt at reviving Ping. It IS a different way for all artists to be heard, and for all listeners to connect and hear their efforts. It's going to be interesting to see how this is embraced by both artists and listeners.
Yes indeed it is ALL of those things...shrouded in the mystique and promise of what it can do for future artists.
Guess what? People have to care, and hand over money to Apple, long before any of the fairytale ideas take shape.
Here's what I wish Apple would of done with music.
That's it. That's all Apple Music needs to be. None of this social network crap (leave social to Facebook). Skip the 24/7 radio station. I can launch TuneIn and listen to over 40K live radio stations whenever I want. Apple Music will come preinstalled on all ios devices. It doesn't need to be revolutionary or unique to get people to try it out and to get some to subscribe.
Music is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Financially it's going to be a blip on the top and bottom line. Apple should not expend a lot of time and energy over this. The fact that the length of the keynote veered into Google I/O territory mostly because ~40 minutes was spent on music concerns me. There are so many things more important than streaming music. I would have taken a longer demo of iOS 9 over Eddy Cue playing random snippits of music for 20 minutes.
Totally agree. This was Steve's vision also - empower artists with technology. This is NOT Spotify streaming replacement or an attempt at reviving Ping. It IS a different way for all artists to be heard, and for all listeners to connect and hear their efforts. It's going to be interesting to see how this is embraced by both artists and listeners.
Totally disagree. Apple should be focusing on bigger things than music. They should not be spending a lot of time, energy and money on this. Offer up a streaming service that's competitive with Spotify and Google Play Music and be done with it. None of this social network and radio station crap. A thousand noes for every yes. Eddy Cue needs a big poster of that in his office.
There will be curated playlists and recommendations. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise when it's so explicit in the keynotes.
(I captured Apple website for you but it's so damn hard uploading photo to this site. The server is shit. Check it out yourself at apple.com)
'The app has a My Music section, which has a "For You" feature that provides recommendations of artists and curated radio playlists to users. Apple Senior Vice President Eddy Cue explained that For You wasn't just algorithmically driven, that it also involved human curators.'
http://mashable.com/2015/06/08/apple-music
Look, we're all going to have to wait until the service is launched to see whether we like it or not. I'm just expressing some concern that it won't meet my expectations based on what's been shown so far.
Why do I think this?
Well, a lot of what's been demo'd for Apple Music looks like re-branded features from Beats Music, right down to the bubble interface that asks you to select favorite genres and artists when the service is first set up. Also, Apple Music's "For You" section sounds a whole lot like Beats' "Just For You." So given these close similarities, I'm making some assumptions about how these features will work on Apple's Music service.
Now, I have been using Beats Music for about a year, and I have not found the "Just For You" feature to be particularly helpful for me. It tends to recommend older songs and omits some of the music genres I like most, despite my listening history and initial music preferences setup. If I want to hear older music, frankly I can do that on my own. For me the benefit of "curation" is to help me discover new music and "Just For You" doesn't cut it.
But that's where Beats' "Curators" section comes in. It is an entirely separate section where you can browse a list of curators, each specializing in a particular type of music. There are even different curators specializing in the same types of music, so you always have variety. When you follow one of these curators, you get notifications every time they publish a new playlist. In my experience, these curators provide exactly what I wanted: playlists containing new music curated by DJs who share my taste in music.
So far, Apple has not revealed anything that sounds quite like this.
You can play offline playlists.
You still have iTunes Radio and can create any station you want.
Thoughts:
- Connect reminds me of Ping, and I have to roll my eyes at Apple once again thinking they are going convince anyone to use it.
- Iovine and Drake were embarassments and should not have been allowed on stage.
- $9.99 is just wrong. The only thing that would have swayed loyal Spotify users would have been price. Fail.
- A global radio station is a big deal? What? What kind of Time Warp is this? Radio is dead. No one wants that. On Demand music killed Radio a long time ago. Apple was the one that killed it. I can't believe they think anyone will care about this. The only kind of "radio" I find interesting is what we already have: iTunes Radio, where its curated by me.
- Why would I want to rent music for $9.99/mon? I've never been convinced of the value in this. I have a library of songs well over my 25,000 limit in iTunes (Match). At the very most, I might add $10/mon of new music to that library. At most. You give me free access to the entire iTunes Store, I'm not suddenly going on a shopping spree. I OWN most of the music I want to listen to. And unfortunately, most of the new music I buy doesn't even come from the iTunes Store, as its not distributed there (no FLAC).
I'm fairly certain I will not be subscribing, and I don't think I'm alone in that.
No, you're not alone in that, but compared to the number of people who disagree with most of that, who will subscribe, you're almost alone.
There will be curated playlists and recommendations. I'm not sure why you would think otherwise when it's so explicit in the keynotes.
(I captured Apple website for you but it's so damn hard uploading photo to this site. The server is shit. Check it out yourself at apple.com)
If you had read my comments more carefully, you might understand the distinction I'm making between the sort of music curation I'm looking for vs. the type that's been described by Apple.
If you had read my comments more carefully, you might understand the distinction I'm making between the sort of music curation I'm looking for vs. the type that's been described by Apple.
I read it carefully and I think you're the one who confused. Just because Apple put curated playlists in For You doesn't mean For You = Beat's For You. You are the only one who think that despite all the explicit explanations from Apple both at keynote and on official site.
Switch back from what?
I read it carefully and I think you're the one who confused. Just because Apple put curated playlists in For You doesn't mean For You = Beat's For You. You are the only one who think that.
Do you use Beats Music? If the answer is no, then you have no basis for judging whether I'm confused about anything.
What you may not realize is that most of the "new" music features shown off at the Apple event were lifted directly from Beats Music. From the emphasis on human curation over computer algorithms, to the bubbly interface that asks you what kinds of music you like most, Apple didn't invent any of this. They purchased this intellectual property via their acquisition of Beats. So a lot of what you saw as new features, I see merely as a re-branding of what I've already been enjoying for the last twelve months.
Now I realize that Apple's "For You" may turn out to be different from Beats' "Just For You". In fact, that is my only hope that this new service will be any good. But I think the odds are that the two will be more similar than different.
Switch back from what?
From the Beats Music service that is soon to be replaced with Apple Music.