Assembling my own playlsists iver the years guarantees i will have music i like, but i have still become fond of Pandora to discover artists and individual tracks. Some time back i trialed Rdio, which is a great service, but once google released their iOS app, i gave it a whirl, especially since i was able to upload my entire music collection to the web via Google. It easily became my default streaming option. Web access was the dealmaker, and its free. I later upgraded to full access.
Frankly, this system seems hard to beat, at least for me. nBeats1 holds no interest for me personally since i only infrequently consume mainstream music these days. Plus, does Apple Music allow for web-based access? I have not able to determine this yet. That feature alone attracted me to Google Play Music, and eventually made me a subscriber so i could sample new albums and tracks as desired (which ultimately guides my purchases from iTunes frankly -- i still want to own my music and Control my playlist content, especially for those times i am without internet access, such as in the mountains.)
I know you can build custom playlists with streaming, even for offline use, but this strikes me as a total workaround rather than a solution for anyone who is offline for extended periods. Bottom line: i anxiously awaited Appl Music, hoping for something compelling if not revolutionary. Right now, i am seeing no reason to consider anything beyond a test drive, but i see nothing to pull me away from Google, which really is a very nice system with a great app, especially when combined with its component systems of Songza (great lists) and YouTube Music offerings. And i still pay my 4 bucks a month for Pandora, which even with its extremely limited library and high occurence of repeats, really provides a nice service as a supplement. Plus, i have to say, i think "human curation" emphasis is over-rated. Pandora's Music Genome Project actually works extremely well once you spend a little time fine tuning it with the simple thumbs up-thumbs down clicks the first few times on a list.
Again, this is just one consumer's take and it us what works for me, but i have a hard time thinking i am such an exception. Has anyone else found the alternative services to be more than sufficient? (I will say, i also trialed Spotify a few years back and found the interface confusing and unimpressive although the library is sizeable.)
Beats is not "mainstream music." On the contrary, unlike Pandora's record-label-programmed music with strict limits on skipping, Beats focuses on human curation to help you discover new music in whatever musical sub-genre you enjoy and lets you freely navigate between your own music collection and new tracks you discover via their ample playlist selection.
Google's music service, like many other Google services, seems enticing at face value. But given the company's business model and well documented hostile attitude towards user privacy, many feel it wise to use their offering sparingly.
- $9.99 is just wrong. The only thing that would have swayed loyal Spotify users would have been price. Fail.
Since when does Apple compete on price? This is a silly point of view. They will succeed or fail on the merits of their music service, not based on whether they undercut competitors on pricing.
Apple Music is more for the current generation coming into being...
It's funny but I have the opposite take. To me, Apple's presentations seem increasingly tailored for aging baby boomers rather than trend setting hipsters. Unlimited streaming music and human music curation were pioneered by others years ago, and Apple is merely playing catch-up, in a disconcertingly tone deaf fashion. Apple's music presentation seemed less about getting young people to switch and more about snagging the older, late adopter market.
Comments
Assembling my own playlsists iver the years guarantees i will have music i like, but i have still become fond of Pandora to discover artists and individual tracks. Some time back i trialed Rdio, which is a great service, but once google released their iOS app, i gave it a whirl, especially since i was able to upload my entire music collection to the web via Google. It easily became my default streaming option. Web access was the dealmaker, and its free. I later upgraded to full access.
Frankly, this system seems hard to beat, at least for me. nBeats1 holds no interest for me personally since i only infrequently consume mainstream music these days. Plus, does Apple Music allow for web-based access? I have not able to determine this yet. That feature alone attracted me to Google Play Music, and eventually made me a subscriber so i could sample new albums and tracks as desired (which ultimately guides my purchases from iTunes frankly -- i still want to own my music and Control my playlist content, especially for those times i am without internet access, such as in the mountains.)
I know you can build custom playlists with streaming, even for offline use, but this strikes me as a total workaround rather than a solution for anyone who is offline for extended periods. Bottom line: i anxiously awaited Appl Music, hoping for something compelling if not revolutionary. Right now, i am seeing no reason to consider anything beyond a test drive, but i see nothing to pull me away from Google, which really is a very nice system with a great app, especially when combined with its component systems of Songza (great lists) and YouTube Music offerings. And i still pay my 4 bucks a month for Pandora, which even with its extremely limited library and high occurence of repeats, really provides a nice service as a supplement. Plus, i have to say, i think "human curation" emphasis is over-rated. Pandora's Music Genome Project actually works extremely well once you spend a little time fine tuning it with the simple thumbs up-thumbs down clicks the first few times on a list.
Again, this is just one consumer's take and it us what works for me, but i have a hard time thinking i am such an exception. Has anyone else found the alternative services to be more than sufficient? (I will say, i also trialed Spotify a few years back and found the interface confusing and unimpressive although the library is sizeable.)
Beats is not "mainstream music." On the contrary, unlike Pandora's record-label-programmed music with strict limits on skipping, Beats focuses on human curation to help you discover new music in whatever musical sub-genre you enjoy and lets you freely navigate between your own music collection and new tracks you discover via their ample playlist selection.
Google's music service, like many other Google services, seems enticing at face value. But given the company's business model and well documented hostile attitude towards user privacy, many feel it wise to use their offering sparingly.
Originally Posted by pmz
- $9.99 is just wrong. The only thing that would have swayed loyal Spotify users would have been price. Fail.
Since when does Apple compete on price? This is a silly point of view. They will succeed or fail on the merits of their music service, not based on whether they undercut competitors on pricing.
Apple Music is more for the current generation coming into being...
It's funny but I have the opposite take. To me, Apple's presentations seem increasingly tailored for aging baby boomers rather than trend setting hipsters. Unlimited streaming music and human music curation were pioneered by others years ago, and Apple is merely playing catch-up, in a disconcertingly tone deaf fashion. Apple's music presentation seemed less about getting young people to switch and more about snagging the older, late adopter market.