Apple Music offers a peek into the future of Apple Inc, and its stark contrast to Google and Microso

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 99
    freshmakerfreshmaker Posts: 532member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Firelock View Post



    I was going to post the same comment. Love the article, but AI needs a proofreader.

     

    Seriously. There are so many errors and run-on sentences it's comical.
  • Reply 42 of 99
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    People don't have issues with iTunes on iOS, it's iTunes for Windows and Mac that they complain about. But now the majority use it on iOS.

     

    I'm sure iTunes on the Mac is great.  I don't know, but I would assume it's at least good.  On Windows it's pretty much always sucked and still does now.   When you have no other choice to use something else, you are forced to use it, though these days not so much.   I really don't use iTunes on my iOS devices all that much either.  

     

    As for Apple Radio,  I'm not going to pay $10 a month for it.  If I tuned into music a whole lot more then I do these days, then sure.  I did tune into Beats1 for a hour or so Yesterday as I was cleaning up my Jetski after being out on the Lake for a few hours.  It wasn't to bad, but nothing that WOWed me.  

     

    Samsung trying to do their own services are going to fail.  It's not that they're good or bad, but that it's not Google's Services!!!!  If Samsung can't pull it off, no one else can do it either.   Samsung is really the only one that's making money with Android, and even that is a tiny fraction of what Apple is making.  All these company's are selling lots of Android phones and making very little to none it profits and can't even have their own services to make some money after the sale.  They have zero control of the OS (Android) and Google is forcing to make them more and more front and center and taking more and more control.   Android Wear (Watches) is a pretty much CLOSED platform.   If Samsung was smart, they'd move to TIZEN.  Gain full control of the Hardware, OS and services just like Apple.  They're well known, when you think of Android, you really think of Samsung.  That's a Advantage and they have other things to bring in money.  Instead of pushing Android forward more and more and more making it harder for them to ever  branch out on their own, they should drop Android.   Otherwise that less then 10% Profit in the Smartphone market they're making will continue to drop as Apple's close to 90% profits grows.  That's how bad it is for everyone else!!!  Fighting over 1-2% of whatever profits are left!!!!  There is really  no money to be made with Android.   Even Google makes more money from iOS users then Android users.

  • Reply 43 of 99
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

     

    Incredible read. 

     

    Apple overall did a fantastic job with Apple Music. But yes, if you go by the internet it is indeed a "disaster" just how every single ultra successful Apple service/product was deemed a disaster by morons, trolls, sort-sighted douchebags, and attention whores. 


     

    Both extremes are wrong. Calling Apple Music a disaster is ridiculous. But I also find it troubling when some fawn over it without acknowledging some key faults. The service IS watered down in its categorization of music into broad, generic genres.The user interface IS somewhat convoluted in many areas. Beats 1's "genre-free" programming is anything but, and is predictably alienating everyone who's not a fan of top-40 R&B and rap.

     

    The best way to have Apple address these shortcomings in a timely manner is to bring attention to them as quickly as possible, before their attention turns elsewhere. 

  • Reply 44 of 99
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hagar View Post



    While I agree that the analysis of the iTunes ecosystem is spot on, I cannot agree on the positive take on the technical execution of Apple Music. Just like any previous release of a web service, Apple has managed to make this a complex and unreliable experience. I'm having issues with iCloud Photos, iTunes Match and now with Apple Music.



    I'm surprised at how many bugs and usability issues the new iOS Music has. The attention for details and intuitive has gone out of the window, and there are several obvious bugs. I hope iOS 9 will bring back some software quality.



    Also, a new updated iCloud 2 would be appreciated. More robust data management, version control, speed (iCloud is slow as a turtle in Europe) and a coherent vision for users. Ask 100 people what iCloud is and most still won't know.



    A few years back, iCloud would have been a great mechanism to lock users and developers in. But as it has largely failed as a syncing service because of bugs, all mayor developers have created their own syncing services that are compatible with Android.



    So, no, iCloud is not a positive Apple story. Not yet.

     

    The problem with Apple Music is Apple didn't even follow their own Design standards.  Basically just threw it out the window and so it's really a complete mess.  At least that's what I hear as I haven't even signed up yet.

     

    iTunes has never been great on Windows.  iCloud works just fine for me on some things and other things it can be flaky.  

  • Reply 45 of 99
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by john_l_uk View Post

     

    As a UK user I can see no justification for charging us £9.99 when U.S. subscribers get the same service for $9.99 which translates as £6.50. We're used to being penalised when buying hardware, which is always more expensive here because of 'shipping costs', but this isn't the case for electronic services and it feels like we always get taken advantage of. I really wish Apple would live up to my mental image of them being the good guys.


     

    Is it the VAT Tax making costs higher?  The cost of Music higher there then here.  It could be any number of things.  

  • Reply 46 of 99
    croprcropr Posts: 1,122member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JBDragon View Post

     

     

    Is it the VAT Tax making costs higher?  The cost of Music higher there then here.  It could be any number of things.  




    VAT is only 20% in the UK, which makes it still less than 8 GBP, so Apple is charging an extra 2 GBP.

  • Reply 47 of 99
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by thrang View Post



    The forced requirement of iCloud Music Library and the non existent implementation of synchronized downloads of Offline content to all devices you own is a deal breaker for me. I like a lot of other things about Apple Music, though they did make it more complicated than it needed to be. So for now, I've disabled renewal for a family plan and auto renew for two Match accounts.



    Don't force me and my family to spend a lot more money per month for cellular data to constantly re-stream my own content over and over. It's also ignorant of Apple to think that even if you wanted to spend the money that you would have everywhere all the time access, especially when driving, commuting, flying, in many buildings...



    It should be an option for those that want to live in the cloud. It shouldn't be mandatory, which Apple sort of makes it if you want to use a large feature of Apple Music, Offline downloads.

     

    Music doesn't use a tone of Data.  One of the great things using T-Mobile, Music streaming from a list list of places doesn't count against your Data usage at all.  I'm always streaming music and yet my Data usage is really pretty low.  

     

    http://www.t-mobile.com/offer/free-music-streaming.html

     

    I know Apple's itunes Radio is currently supported, but not sure of Apple Music yet?  If not yet, it should be in the future.  There's over 30 music streaming services supported currently.  I do most of my streaming while driving!!!  I have a 128 iPhone now and it has ZERO music on it.  In the past I've had a few songs, but really, I'm always just streaming.   I don't have to worry about just having a bunch of old music I've heard a million times.   With Streaming I hear a lot of everything.

  • Reply 48 of 99
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    I wish there was a way to do family sharing just for Apple Music. $14.99 is a fantastic price but once you set up family sharing it includes all iTunes purchases. Great for parents and children but not so much for anything else.

     

    That's the whole point!!!!  it's not to share with 5 of your friends splitting the cost 6 ways.  Each person paying $2.50 a month!!!  That is why it's called the FAMILY plan!!! Not the Friends and Family Plan!!!   You're complaining because you're trying to cheat the system!!!  

  • Reply 49 of 99
    jbdragonjbdragon Posts: 2,305member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

     

     

    This more than anything. The dirty little secret the fAndroids won’t admit to. It makes me wonder why Apple is brining Apple Music to the Android platform. Let the Googlers listen to their crappy mp3s.


     

    I don't see any Fandroids using Apple music, but I'm sure there are a few Android users that will give it a try and even pay.  I think it'll be a fraction of the users, but that could also lead to them jumping ship form Android to the iPhone later on.  Getting on more platforms I think will be a good thing.  Lots of Apple and Beats1 mentioned is free Advertising.    Give Apple Music a chance and hear how much better it sounds and  how better overall the service is to Google Music.

  • Reply 50 of 99
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    That's the whole point!!!!  it's not to share with 5 of your friends splitting the cost 6 ways.  Each person paying $2.50 a month!!!  That is why it's called the FAMILY plan!!! Not the Friends and Family Plan!!!   You're complaining because you're trying to cheat the system!!!  

    So if I want to split the service with my parents and siblings that's not considered family? We would totally do it but I'm not paying for my siblings or parents AppStore and iBooks purchases. I guess when they call it the family plan they really mean the parents with young children plan.
  • Reply 51 of 99
    frbauerfrbauer Posts: 5member
    The executed this competently? What? Did all the bug lists in various forums somehow escape your attention? Yes, they executed it and yes, they are doing a lot of things right, and yes, they will probably fix everything and it will become a great service. But they have also messed up a lot of things in a very amateurish way. There are a lot of bugs that should never have gone into a widely released service and/or software. So yes, they have executed this, but they have not done it competently.

    While there is a lot of competence on the business side of Apple Music and on the side of understanding music in general, there is a huge amount of incompetence on the technical side. And while technical bugs are easier to fix than conceptual ones, they still cause a huge amount of frustration on the side of the users who have to wonder "Did they ever actually test this?"
  • Reply 52 of 99
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    jbdragon wrote: »
    The problem with Apple Music is Apple didn't even follow their own Design standards.  Basically just threw it out the window and so it's really a complete mess.  At least that's what I hear as I haven't even signed up yet.

    iTunes has never been great on Windows.  iCloud works just fine for me on some things and other things it can be flaky.  

    Yep. It seems like engineers said Apple Music needs to have all these features and then the UI designers were forced to come up with something to house all these features. And instead of taking the time to rebuild iTunes from the ground up leadership just decided to bolt Apple Music on top of an already bloated and sometimes confusing app. I see a lot of people blaming the UI designers but really I think they were faced with a very difficult situation when being asked to incorporate so many different features into an app.

    In my mind the ellipses in Apple Music are just like the hamburger menu buttons that Apple UX evangelists have argued against. Below are a couple snippets from a 2014 WWDC session with Apple UX evangelist Mike Stern where he argued against the use of the hamburger menu. Click the link to read the whole thing. Everything he said applies 100% to Apple Music. Especially the last sentence: Look, drawers of any kind have a nasty tendency to fill with junk.

    https://medium.com/design-philosophies/apple-and-hamburgers-a17e4099fada
    Remember, the three key things about an intuitive navigation system is that they tell you where you are, and they show you where else you can go.Hamburger menus are terrible at both of those things, because the menu is not on the screen. It’s not visible. Only the button to display the menu is. And in practice, talking to developers, they found this out themselves.
    And finally, the downside of being able to show a lot of options is that you can show a lot of options. Is that you will show a lot of options. The potential for bloat and misuse is tremendous. They allow you to add all sorts of stuff that your users don’t really care about. Like information about the app. Or version history, or credits. I hate to break it to you, but no one cares.And the other thing is that people wind up taking ads and special offers and making them look just like regular sections and putting it in there too. That sucks. No one wants that either.

    Look, drawers of any kind have a nasty tendency to fill with junk.

    Below is an example of what you get when you tap on the ellipse next to a song in a playlist:

    52nous.jpg

    How could any Apple UX evangelist defend this?
  • Reply 53 of 99
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    So if I want to split the service with my parents and siblings that's not considered family? We would totally do it but I'm not paying for my siblings or parents AppStore and iBooks purchases. I guess when they call it the family plan they really mean the parents with young children plan.

     

    Is that a surprise to you? A family plan is for parents and children too young to have their own credit card. They probably expect adult children to have flown the nest.

  • Reply 54 of 99
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:




    Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post



    I don't understand why people find it so convoluted. I heard a comment that the pop-up menu on the iPhone should only have 3-4 rows and now it is a case of Apple throwing out their own UI guidelines by having so many options there.


     

    Apple's famous for creating minimalist, simple user experiences that focus on what's most important and say no to everything else. The new Music service seems to deviate sharply from that, somehow managing to omit expected features while also presenting overly complex interfaces. Apple Music, uncharacteristically for Apple, feels like a product designed by committee.

     

    Quote:

    It really is simple. Apple gives you your music + your playlists on one tab. You can opt to only see what is locally on the iPhone or everything on the Cloud.


     

    That's not the complicated part. It's everything else. For example, why is it so difficult and cumbersome to explore a music library (Apple's or your own)? Notice I said "explore" which is not the same as "search." There's a difference between searching and browsing.

     

    Allow me to elaborate:

     

    On Beats Music, you can search for an artist and instantly land on that artist's home page. Once there, you have a view of their top songs and albums, and you're just one click away from viewing all of their albums, songs, and even EPs. When viewing any list, there is a button that lets you change the sort order alphabetically or chronologically, in ascending or descending order. Lists also have iconography to indicate whether each song is in your library and whether it is available for offline listening. Albums always display their year of release, and by default they're always listed newest first. Clicking on the artist's name (which is clearly clickable) takes you to an informative bio page.

     

    Apple Music doesn't work at all like this.

     

    When you search for an artist, clicking on their name takes you to the artist's page. The page may or may not have a photo of the artist, and contains no information about them. To view info about the artist you must click directly on the artist's name, which has no visual affordance to indicate that it's clickable. Now you're on the artist's bio page. For many artists, this page is completely empty. For others, you have some biographical text followed by a list of icons representing "similar artists". Those icons are, remarkably, not clickable.

     

     

    By default you land on the "My Music" tab on the artist's page. This view displays a list of the artist's albums which are currently in your personal music library. There's no visual indication of which of those albums you own and which you are renting from Apple. There is no visual indication of whether they are available for offline listening. There is no way to view all the songs from the artist in a single list. There is no way to change the sort order of any list. Because "album view" is the only option, if you happen to have a lot of singles from many different albums you will see a convoluted list of meaningless albums instead of a list of the songs themselves. The only way to look at the individual songs is to click on the albums... one at a time. Once viewing the album, again there is no visual indication of whether you own or rent the songs, or whether they're available for offline listening. The only way to determine these things is to click on their ellipsis menus... ONE BY ONE.

     

    But wait, what I just described is not even consistent from artist to artist! I experienced the above when I clicked on the artist "Above & Beyond" for which I have several albums in my library. If I click on an artist with say, just two albums, then I get a completely different experience! In that case, I see all the songs on a single page, separated by album. I get the logic behind this, but in an already convoluted music app this just makes for a confusing and disorienting experience for most users (while at the same time being inflexible).

     

    Next, this artist's page also has an "All" tab. Here you have short summaries in the following order: latest release, top songs, top albums, top videos, videos from connect, and only then...  at the very bottom of the list... you have albums. There is no section for "songs" and no way to view all songs on one page.

     

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

     

    It gives you curated suggestions at "For You". You don't like that, you can ignore it.

     

    It gives you a tab for all the radio stations that are there. Again, you don't need to like it. You can just ignore it.

     

    It gives you a tab for what is new, so you can listen to new stuff if you want. 

     


     

    Wow, looks like I have a lot of ignoring to do!

     

    "For You" is supposed to suggest music based on your library, listening habits, and rating activity. What most people want is for it to suggest great new artists, albums, or songs they've never heard before. What they get is a series of suggestions for artists, albums, and songs they already have - with a strong emphasis on older music. What is the point of this?

     

    "Radio" is equally disappointing. Beats 1 is a melee of top 40 rap, hip-hop, and R&B. Great if that's your cup of tea. Not so much if it isn't. Additionally there are other "radio stations" based on a very shallow and generic selection of genres. Again the music selection is uninspiring and you can't even see a playlist for each one.

     

    "New" is OK, but the interface is convoluted and difficult to navigate. There is no way to click through from a displayed track to its parent album. To do so, you need to click it to start it playing, then open the player screen, then click the ellipsis menu, and then, cryptically, click on its mini title bar which links to the album. Ridiculous. 

     

    Edit: The ellipsis menu's title bar links to the album. So yeah it's there, but hardly intuitive.

     

     

    Quote:

    So I'm still failing to see why it is complicated?

     



     

    Do you still fail to see, even after reading this?

  • Reply 55 of 99
    maestro64maestro64 Posts: 5,043member
    I think, right there, within those words, are expressed how Apple out-performs its rivals. And I would modify the word, "planning", to be "long-term planning." When Apple set out create ?Watch, it wasn't a project for a "calendar year," or a "fiscal year" - few Board of Directors have the foresight or patients to allow a project to span multiple years in development. In addition (and in special contrast to Google) Apple has the discipline to not telegraph it's future plans until it's ready to announce a finished product, with all it's ducks in a row.

    Apple may not announce some of the details of its behind-the-scene related activity when announcing the product... and this has lead to pundits to declaring the product will fail. This has been useful to Apple in not complicating a new product announcement while making for a lot of media chatter (at no cost to Apple) which has inadvertently, through negative comments, caused a BUZZ about the product. Apple steps in with planned news releases, to make further announcements about the new products, tamping down one product concern while leaving enough uncertainty to keep the buzz going in different directions. Apple has a black-belt in marketing. Few companies know how to manipulate the news media like Apple. It even manipulates its competitors into talking about Apple to the press.

    Microsoft: Old-school marketing. Doesn't even have a plan to keep media chatter going.

    Google: Management loves to spill the beans before a product is ready. No marketing strategy.

    Samsung: Still believes product specifications define a product. Uses comparison of pseudo-important specs to show superiority over Apple. Throws money at marketing to buy media for public consumption.

    Amazon: Gives hardware away at low or no profit to sell books and music at thin profits. Still seeing price to being front and center to making a sale. Has spent nearly it's whole corporate life not making money.

    APPLE: Playing its own long-term game. Markets to primarily (a) affluent and/or discriminating users, (b) large corporate and government customers. Skates to where the money is.

    I will make only one correction and that is for Amazon. For a long time I was trying to figure out what Amazon's game was and at some point they need to turn a profit or wall street will turn on them like wolves on a dying carcus. Amazon is playing the game of giving freebies and pulling in new customers to the point they never look back when Amazon slowly raises prices on their dedicated customers. I've been caught a few time, went to Amaizon searched and bought without doing my research only to find out I over paid, I could have gone down the street and got it for less including tax. Amazon is hoping all the freebie will keep you from looking elsewhere as the rip you off.

    Amaizon is analysing people buying habits and they know when you are not shopping around so they do not show you the best price when you stop looking.
  • Reply 56 of 99
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by john_l_uk View Post

     

    As a UK user I can see no justification for charging us £9.99 when U.S. subscribers get the same service for $9.99 which translates as £6.50. We're used to being penalised when buying hardware, which is always more expensive here because of 'shipping costs', but this isn't the case for electronic services and it feels like we always get taken advantage of. I really wish Apple would live up to my mental image of them being the good guys.


     

    Blame the record labels, not Apple.

  • Reply 57 of 99
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by thrang View Post



    the non existent implementation of synchronized downloads of Offline content to all devices you own is a deal breaker for me.

     

    So you want downloaded offline content to be the same on all devices? What if you do all your music listening on one device and virtually none on another? What if that second device is constrained on free storage space? Do you not see how shortsighted your request is?

  • Reply 58 of 99
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,179member
    maestro64 wrote: »
    I will make only one correction and that is for Amazon. For a long time I was trying to figure out what Amazon's game was and at some point they need to turn a profit or wall street will turn on them like wolves on a dying carcus. Amazon is playing the game of giving freebies and pulling in new customers to the point they never look back when Amazon slowly raises prices on their dedicated customers. I've been caught a few time, went to Amaizon searched and bought without doing my research only to find out I over paid, I could have gone down the street and got it for less including tax. Amazon is hoping all the freebie will keep you from looking elsewhere as the rip you off.

    Amaizon is analysing people buying habits and they know when you are not shopping around so they do not show you the best price when you stop looking.

    Related to that their 20th Anniversary is coming up and there's apparently some big deals to be had. There's even special pricing for UK Prime. From AndroidCentral:

    "Amazon is turning 20 on July 15, and to commemorate the occasion, the retailer will offer "more deals than Black Friday." Dubbed Prime Day, the retailer is promising a "global shopping event" that will be open to Prime subscribers in the US, the UK, Spain, Japan, Italy, Germany, France, Canada, and Austria. To further incentivize the purchase of Prime subscriptions, Amazon is slashing the price of annual membership to £59 (from £79) in the UK. New customers can sign up for Prime at a discounted price in the UK until midnight July 8.

    Prime Day kicks off midnight PST on July 15th. New deals will be rolled out every ten minutes, and the retailer will offer discounts on all categories. If you're on the fence about getting an annual Prime subscription, Amazon allows you to try the service out for free for 30 days."
  • Reply 59 of 99
    freediverxfreediverx Posts: 1,423member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DanielSW View Post



    I love Apple Music already, and I see it as yet another significant draw for more switchers to the Apple ecosystem.



    For me, it's served to remind me of a lot of music I'd forgotten about over the years which I can now enjoy again without having to purchase outright. And I can sample whole tracks and albums of new stuff.

     

    The problem is that many people don't want to "rediscover" old music. They want help finding NEW music that matches their taste. And this is an area where the "For You" feature fails miserably.

  • Reply 60 of 99
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    freediverx wrote: »
    Apple's famous for creating minimalist, simple user experiences that focus on what's most important and say no to everything else. The new Music service seems to deviate sharply from that, somehow managing to omit expected features while also presenting overly complex interfaces. Apple Music, uncharacteristically for Apple, feels like a product designed by committee.


    That's not the complicated part. It's everything else. For example, w<span style="line-height:1.4em;">hy is it so difficult and cumbersome to explore a music library (Apple's or your own)? Notice I said "explore" which is not the same as "search." There's a difference between searching and browsing.</span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Allow me to elaborate:</span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">On Beats Music, you can search for an artist and instantly land on that artist's home page. Once there, you have a view of </span>
    their<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> top songs and albums, and you're </span>
    just<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> </span>
    <strong style="line-height:1.4em;">one click away</strong>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">from viewing all of their albums, songs, and even EPs. When viewing any list, there is a button that lets you change the sort order alphabetically or chronologically, in ascending or descending order. Lists also have iconography to indicate </span>
    whether<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> each song is in your library and whether it is available for offline listening. Albums always display their year of release, and by default they're always listed newest first. Clicking on the artist's name (which is clearly clickable) takes you to an informative bio page.</span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">Apple Music doesn't work at all like this.</span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">When you search for an artist, clicking on their name takes you to the </span>
    artist's page. The page may or may not have a photo of the artist, and contains no information about them. To view info about the artist you must click directly on the artist's name, which has no visual affordance to indicate that it's clickable. Now you're on the artist's bio page. For many artists, this page is completely empty. For others, you have some biographical text followed by a list of icons representing "similar artists". Those icons are, remarkably, not clickable.


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">By </span>
    default<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> you land on the "</span>
    <strong style="line-height:1.4em;">My Music" tab</strong>
    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">on the artist's page. </span>
    This view displays a list of the artist's albums which are currently in your personal music library. There's no visual indication of which of those albums you own and which you are renting from Apple. There is no visual indication of whether they are available for offline listening. There is no way to view all the songs from the artist in a single list. There is no way to change the sort order of any list. Because "album view" is the only option, if you happen to have a lot of singles from many different albums you will see a convoluted list of meaningless albums instead of a list of the songs themselves. The only way to look at the individual songs is to click on the albums... one at a time. Once viewing the album, again there is no visual indication of whether you own or rent the songs, or whether they're available for offline listening. The only way to determine these things is to click on their ellipsis menus... ONE BY ONE.

    But wait, what I just described is not even consistent from artist to artist! I experienced the above when I clicked on the artist "Above & Beyond" for which I have several albums in my library. If I click on an artist with say, just two albums, then I get a completely different experience! In that case, I see all the songs on a single page, separated by album. I get the logic behind this, but in an already convoluted music app this just makes for a confusing and disorienting experience for most users (while at the same time being inflexible).

    Next, this artist's page also has an "All" tab. Here you have short summaries in the following order: latest release, top songs, top albums, top videos, videos from connect, and only then...  at the very bottom of the list... you have albums. There is no section for "songs" and no way to view all songs on one page.



    Wow, looks like I have a lot of ignoring to do!

    "For You" is supposed to suggest music based on your library, listening habits, and rating activity. What most people want is for it to suggest great new artists, albums, or songs they've never heard before. What they get is a series of suggestions for artists, albums, and songs they already have - with a strong emphasis on older music. What is the point of this?

    "Radio" is equally disappointing. Beats 1 is a melee of top 40 rap, hip-hop, and R&B. Great if that's your cup of tea. Not so much if it isn't. Additionally there are other "radio stations" based on a very shallow and generic selection of genres. Again the music selection is uninspiring and you can't even see a playlist for each one.

    "New" is OK, but the interface is convoluted and difficult to navigate. There is no way to click through from a displayed track to its parent album. To do so, you need to click it to start it playing, then open the player screen, then click the ellipsis menu, and then, cryptically, click on its mini title bar which links to the album. Ridiculous. 



    Do you still fail to see, even after reading this?

    Wow! So many misinformations on one, admittedly long, post. I won't bother to correct all of them but just this one for example:
    "New" is OK, but the interface is convoluted and difficult to navigate. There is no way to click through from a displayed track to its parent album. To do so, you need to click it to start it playing, then open the player screen, then click the ellipsis menu, and then, cryptically, click on its mini title bar which links to the album. Ridiculous.

    Yes. There is. Click the More button and click the song name on the top. You'll be right there on the album page.
Sign In or Register to comment.