Apple Music has 'hundreds' working on curation, Jimmy Iovine says

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited August 2015
Curated content will be how Apple Music sets itself apart from numerous rivals in the streaming music market, Jimmy Iovine said in a new interview published on Thursday.




"Music deserves elegance and the distribution right now is not great," he told the London Evening Standard, referring to competing services as "utilities" that are "sterile, programmed by algorithms and numbing." To help deliver curated content, Apple hired "hundreds" of people, Iovine said.

That included Beats 1 DJ Zane Lowe, recruited from the BBC. Iovine explained that while it was difficult to convince Lowe to move from London to Los Angeles, he recognized Lowe's value. The DJ's accomplishments with Beats 1 in 19 weeks "shouldn't have been possible," Iovine added.

The executive also remarked that he actually sees other kinds of entertainment as Apple Music's main competition, not streaming rivals like Spotify, Rdio, or Tidal.

Looking back on Apple's reaction to an open letter by Taylor Swift, asking the company to pay rights holders for Apple Music trial streaming, Iovine said that he received a call from Apple Internet chief Eddy Cue, who allegedly described the letter as a "drag." Initially, Iovine suggested that there might be something Swift didn't understand. Cue prompted Iovine to call Scott Borchetta, the head of Swift's record label.

"I called Scott, I called Eddy back, Eddy and Tim [Cook, Apple CEO] called me back and we said, 'Hey, you know what, we want this system to be right and we want artists to be comfortable, let's do it'."

Had Apple not agreed to make the changes proposed by Swift and others, labels, writers, and musicians would not have been paid for the first three months of the service, and lost out on substantial amounts of income from future subscribers.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    Straight Outta Cupertino
  • Reply 2 of 32

    I had not heard of Beats until reading about Apple's purchase.  I signed up to Beats to try it out and now have converted to Apple Music.  I liked the seemingly unlimited selection going back decades and the curated playlists I found for artists (Jazz greats and new ones. Piano and Cello, Violin ) and genre (Jazz, Classical, old Folk performers, '50s-'60s rock).  Apple Music has kept the flexibility of Beats but I think the UI is better; library is more than I'll be able to listen to  and the curation seems to have widened.

     

    I think Apple Music will be a success.

  • Reply 3 of 32
    And yet we couldn't use acoustic fingerprinting tech (that's already in iTunes Match) in iCloud Music Library...
  • Reply 4 of 32
    I think the jury is still WAY out on Apple Music.

    My experience hasn't been great. The new Music app is very complicated, and it makes me wonder if Apple decided that Ease of Use isn't cool anymore.

    Plus, lots of annoyances like asking Siri to play a song that I own, and instead, she plays the same titled song but a slightly different version through Apple Music. The software should be smart enough to play the songs and versions I know and already OWN and have on my phone, instead of some less familiar variant online.

    This dumb oversight leads to other little complications that marr the experience. This morning, I was driving my daughter to camp. We hopped in the car and told Siri to play "Apple's and Bananas" as we were backing out of a long driveway. Instead of playing the version we already had on the phone, Siri played the Apple Music online version (same artist -- Raffi -- but not the concert recording we know and love) but since we were in the car backing slowly away from the house, our internet connection to Wifi kept getting weaker and weaker, so the stupid song kept pausing until we were all the way down the block, and the iPhone finally switched to 4G cellular data.

    Thanks, Apple, for not being able to figure out these minor but important details ahead of time. You used to do that, which made all the difference. Just more evidence that the Apple experience under Tim Cook is getting more complicated, sloppier and buggier. More and more, it's feeling like I'm using Microsoft products in the early 2000s....
  • Reply 5 of 32
    k2director wrote: »
    I think the jury is still WAY out on Apple Music.

    My experience hasn't been great. The new Music app is very complicated, and it makes me wonder if Apple decided that Ease of Use isn't cool anymore.

    Plus, lots of annoyances like asking Siri to play a song that I own, and instead, she plays the same titled song but a slightly different version through Apple Music. The software should be smart enough to play the songs and versions I know and already OWN and have on my phone, instead of some less familiar variant online.

    This dumb oversight leads to other little complications that marr the experience. This morning, I was driving my daughter to camp. We hopped in the car and told Siri to play "Apple's and Bananas" as we were backing out of a long driveway. Instead of playing the version we already had on the phone, Siri played the Apple Music online version (same artist -- Raffi -- but not the concert recording we know and love) but since we were in the car backing slowly away from the house, our internet connection to Wifi kept getting weaker and weaker, so the stupid song kept pausing until we were all the way down the block, and the iPhone finally switched to 4G cellular data.

    Thanks, Apple, for not being able to figure out these minor but important details ahead of time. You used to do that, which made all the difference. Just more evidence that the Apple experience under Tim Cook is getting more complicated, and sloppier. It's increasingly feeling like I'm using Microsoft products in the early 2000s....

    I'm beginning to fear Cook is the new John Sculley.
  • Reply 6 of 32
    zroger73zroger73 Posts: 787member

    I realize it probably hasn't worked out this way for everybody, but I've been extremely pleased with the playlist on the House "radio" station. It seems on point to how I remember house in the late-80s to the mid-90s. The House station before Apple Music seemed all over the place and I rarely heard any true house music.

  • Reply 7 of 32
    smarkysmarky Posts: 75member
    Meh.

    Who cares? I don't need some apple person to tell me what music I wanna listen too. I already know. I don't want to listen to beats 1 with there crappy ass DJ's and bad music. I already have the stations I love and the DJ's which are awesome.

    What Apple Music needs is a more immersive experience, that makes music valuable again and realizes music is a huge part of our lifes as human beings.

    Better ways to connect to the artists directly so I can get content and information,

    - Live concert streams as well as archive footage, (concert DVD's etc)

    - Concert tickets with integrated ticket buying and ticket systems (via apple pay, NFC), then with the ability to stream the concert recording added to your account (perhaps as an exclusive for just the people that were there! and bought tickets via apple music)

    - Live acoustic sessions

    - Live periscope like connection with artists for things like backstage before shows, studio recordings etc

    - Video programing like with the radio, but music channels, maybe tailored weekly music news segments that stitches a video report together with next and interviews that are relevant to you.

    - Scheduled interviews like REddit AMA sessions built into the app.

    - Also if Apple are going to keep the crappy headphones, then please make them AWESOME instead of lame and perhaps lets see more beats branded audio devices that are linked to Apple music, perhaps connected speaker hifi systems linked exclusively to apple music content.

    Go big or go home Apple, and right now your service is just a little "me too!"
  • Reply 8 of 32
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    I'm beginning to fear Cook is the new John Sculley.

    Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? I have a Watch now and love it. The only issue I've had so far is it not recognizing my Bluetooth headphones one day.

    Honestly I think Eddy Cue has too much on his plate and Tim Cook should hire a SVP to run iCloud services.
  • Reply 9 of 32

    Ha, I have heard of Playlists -- although it's interesting that you bring that up, because the new Music app actually makes Playlists harder than ever to find, and you have to go into Settings to turn off the useless-to-most-people Connect icon, so you can replace it with the much more familiar and useful Playlists icon!

     

    So thanks for proving my point even further. 

     

    Anyway, telling Siri to play a song directly is the fastest, most convenient way to play a song when you're in the car. Using Playlists only adds to the complexity. Yet asking for a song you own used to be a simple matter for Siri until Apple Music came along.

     

    It's not nitpicking. You just clearly have low standards, so Tim Cook's Apple is still able to meet them with flying colors.... 

  • Reply 10 of 32
    rogifan wrote: »
    Isn't that a bit hyperbolic? I have a Watch now and love it. The only issue I've had so far is it not recognizing my Bluetooth headphones one day.

    Honestly I think Eddy Cue has too much on his plate and Tim Cook should hire a SVP to run iCloud services.

    There's just a greater focus on finances these days, product quality is slipping, the lineup is getting larger, we're making more products to be at price points despite being obsolete, etc. I'm not making a Watch-Newton comparison.
  • Reply 11 of 32
    I was very excited about the curated playlists and added a few to "my playlists" (I think, it is confusing). Then I found dozens of unwanted albums in my collection. It seems to add all the albums the songs are taken from. This may not seem like a big deal to some, but I want my collection to be the music I really like, not filled with things I've never listened to. I couldn't find any other way of saving the playlists for reference in future. So this meant I stopped listening to the curated playlists. This in turn means I don't use Apple Music at all and I have no compelling reason to continue the service.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    sog35 wrote: »
    Hundreds of Millions of Apple customers disagree.

    Apple has been more and more successful and expanded their user base each year with Cook.  Under Sculley Apple almost went bankrupt.

    Apple may not be your cup of tea, but it is for hundreds of millions.

    Maybe the NEW Apple just isn't for you?


    Like they say in sports -  "Look at the scoreboard son, look at the scoreboard"

    And since Cook has been CEO the scoreboard is looking mighty fine.

    So maybe the problem is not with Apple but with you.  You are stuck in the past, stuck in your old ways.  Maybe its time for you to move on.

    You don't understand business and just use caps and tell people to shut up.

    Sculley didn't bankrupt Apple, just FYI. He actually made it very profitable after Jobs left. He also increased the user base.
  • Reply 13 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    I'm beginning to fear Cook is the new John Sculley.

    ....and we're beginning to fear you may be the new Benjamin Frost.

     

    So what?

  • Reply 14 of 32
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post





    I'm beginning to fear Cook is the new John Sculley.

     

    God, your posts get more mind-numbing by the second. How a sane human being can make that statement with a straight face, I have no idea. Apple is in the best position right now, in pretty much every single aspect, than it's been in it's entire history, thanks to Cook. Some bugs in an app does not negate that. 

  • Reply 15 of 32
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post

     

     

    Hundreds of Millions of Apple customers disagree.

     

    Apple has been more and more successful and expanded their user base each year with Cook.  Under Sculley Apple almost went bankrupt.

     

    Apple may not be your cup of tea, but it is for hundreds of millions.

     

    Maybe the NEW Apple just isn't for you?

     

     

    Like they say in sports -  "Look at the scoreboard son, look at the scoreboard"

     

    And since Cook has been CEO the scoreboard is looking mighty fine.

     

    So maybe the problem is not with Apple but with you.  You are stuck in the past, stuck in your old ways.  Maybe its time for you to move on.




    "Look at the scoreboard, son?" Really, that's your way of judging a CEO who takes over what's ALREADY one of the world's most successful and valuable companies, with ALREADY a dominant position in every market it plays in? You watch that CEO for a few years, look at the company's stock price and profits, and declare him a winner? 

     

    That's incredibly simplistic, foolish and it shows deep inexperience on your part. The fact is, Tim Cook inherited Apple at the top of its game, with a ton of momentum going forward. That momentum would make A TON of generic, caretaker CEOs look good for a while (hence your thumbs up for Tim Cook). 

     

    So we know the shallow measurements you use to judge Tim Cook. Let's now look at how a deeper thinker would evaluate him. Let's see, a deeper thinker knows: 

     

    1) a company's stock price is irrelevant, because the market is often the last to know about what's really going on with a company, and a lot of buyers follow a herd mentality. I was a deep Apple user who could tell Apple was firing on all cylinders when I bought the stock at $100 years ago (it's gone up 7-8 times in value since then). Clearly, I knew more about Apple than the overall market did, or else I would not have been able to buy those shares so cheaply. 

     

    2) a company's strong financial performance can easily cover up deep, longer term rot going on inside -- that's why Blackberry/RIM's sales and stock reached its all-time highs well after the iPhone shipped. Many looked at RIM and said "sales are booming, the stock's doing fine, maybe this whole iPhone thing (and Android) isn't a big threat after all!" We know how that turned out. As it turned out for Nokia, Microsoft, etc. etc. 

     

    3) Apple's whole success over THE LONG TERM was based on making products that were easy for your average non-techy, and that "Just Worked" when competitors like Microsoft were pilling on features that didn't really matter, shipping too many confusingly similar products, and not putting them through tough quality control before shipping. Apple's unique focus on ease and quality set it up for all of its success. People trusted new Apple products in a way they would never trust a new Microsoft or Palm or Google product.  

     

    4) Tim Cook's Apple is losing that focus on simplicity, clarity, and quality. Anyone who has been a close Apple follower for the last 15 years or so can tell. Apple is moving more slowly, the products are getting more complicated, and they don't work as well as they used to (i.e., obscure bugs). You won't see it reflected in the stock price or even sales for a while yet, maybe years. But the slippage and rot is there. 

     

    Tim Cook was an operations guy, put in charge of essentially a creative company that was all about its consumer products. I gave Cook the benefit of the doubt for a while, largely based on my trust of Jobs, but sorry, Jobs was wrong and Tim Cook is not the right guy to lead Apple, because he's letting its most important asset (simplicity and reliability) be slowly tarnished. 

     

    I'll give Cook credit for making Apple better at worldwide launches and opening China up, but again, that's something you'd expect from an Operations guy. Product-wise, he doesn't have the instincts to lead Apple, and it will tell over the long haul (sadly).  

     

    Or, if I'm more optimistic, I suppose he can still wake up and realize he needs to pay more attention to those critical aspects of the business, before it's too late and Apple loses what's really special about it in the Public's mind. That's always possible, I guess, but does seem unlikely. 

  • Reply 16 of 32
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TheWhiteFalcon View Post



    Sculley didn't bankrupt Apple, just FYI. He actually made it very profitable after Jobs left. He also increased the user base.

     

    He also made the products trash, while Apple's products under Cook are still best of class in an ever more competitive landscape.

  • Reply 17 of 32

    They'd almost certainly need to have a large staff just for curation simply because of the enormous amount of music in their library.

     

    All I know is the For You playlists Apple Music keeps recommending to me are fantastic. A great mix of music I already like plus some other stuff I haven't heard before which suits my tastes. It's almost uncanny the stuff it comes up with.

  • Reply 18 of 32
    k2director wrote: »

    "Look at the scoreboard, son?" Really, that's your way of judging a CEO who takes over what's ALREADY one of the world's most successful and valuable companies, with ALREADY a dominant position in every market it plays in? You watch that CEO for a few years, look at the company's stock price and profits, and declare him a winner? 

    That's incredibly simplistic, foolish and it shows deep inexperience on your part. The fact is, Tim Cook inherited Apple at the top of its game, with a ton of momentum going forward. That momentum would make A TON of generic, caretaker CEOs look good for a while (hence your thumbs up for Tim Cook). 

    So we know the shallow measurements you use to judge Tim Cook. Let's now look at how a deeper thinker would evaluate him. Let's see, a deeper thinker knows: 

    1)<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> a company's stock price is irrelevant, because the market is often the last to know about what's really going on with a company, and a lot of buyers follow a herd mentality. I was a deep Apple user who could tell Apple was firing on all cylinders when I bought the stock at $100 years ago (it's gone up 7-8 times in value since then). Clearly, I knew more about Apple than the overall market did, or else I would not have been able to buy those shares so cheaply. </span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">2) a company's</span>
    strong<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> financial performance can easily cover up deep, longer term rot going on inside -- that's why Blackberry/RIM's sales and stock reached its all-time highs well after the iPhone shipped. Many looked at RIM and said "sales are booming, the stock's doing fine, maybe this whole iPhone thing (and Android) isn't a big threat after all!" We know how that turned out. As it turned out for Nokia, Microsoft, etc. etc. </span>


    <span style="line-height:1.4em;">3) Apple's whole success over THE LONG TERM was based on making products that were easy for your average </span>
    non-techy, and that "Just Worked" when competitors like Microsoft were pilling on features that didn't really matter, shipping too many confusingly similar products, and not putting them through tough quality control before shipping. Apple's unique focus on ease and quality set it up for all of its success. People trusted new Apple products in a way they would never trust a new Microsoft or Palm or Google product.  

    4) Tim Cook's Apple is losing that focus on simplicity, clarity, and quality. Anyone who has been a close Apple follower for the last 15 years or so can tell. Apple is moving more slowly, the products are getting more complicated, and they don't work as well as they used to (i.e., obscure bugs). You won't see it reflected in the stock price or even sales for a while yet, maybe years. But the slippage and rot is there. 

    Tim Cook was an operations guy, put in charge of essentially a creative company that was all about its consumer products. I gave Cook the benefit of the doubt for a while, largely based on my trust of Jobs, but sorry, Jobs was wrong and Tim Cook is not the right guy to lead Apple, because he's letting its most important asset (simplicity and reliability) be slowly tarnished. 

    I'll give Cook credit for making Apple better at worldwide launches and opening China up, but again, that's something you'd expect from an Operations guy. Product-wise, he doesn't have the instincts to lead Apple, and it will tell over the long haul (sadly).  

    Or, if I'm more optimistic, I suppose he can still wake up and realize he needs to pay more attention to those critical aspects of the business, before it's too late and Apple loses what's really special about it in the Public's mind. That's always possible, I guess, but does seem unlikely. 

    Someone who gets it.
    slurpy wrote: »
    He also made the products trash, while Apple's products under Cook are still best of class in an ever more competitive landscape.

    Case in point; under Sculley absolutely legendary Macs like the SE, SE/30, IIci, IIfx, Quadra 7/8/9xx, the first PowerBooks, etc were produced.
  • Reply 19 of 32
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,294member

    I'm still staying clear from Apple Music. Still not happy about the stupid service ruining my music collection on iTunes. 

  • Reply 20 of 32
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    There's just a greater focus on finances these days, product quality is slipping, the lineup is getting larger, we're making more products to be at price points despite being obsolete, etc. I'm not making a Watch-Newton comparison.

    Oh I don't disagree on some things, especially product lines being tailored to price points and margins. But I don't think product quality is worse than it was before Steve died. Things are just more exposed now because there are more customers and the internet/social media has exploded.
Sign In or Register to comment.