Here's the simple problem with Apple Music. There's not a lot of great music being created at this moment in history. It's hard to get people interested in something that is at a creative low point.
I completely disagree. Music is more diverse and interesting than it's ever been. There is so much great music out there that it's hard to keep up. And that leads to fatigue. I hear so much stuff that I like, but I can't possible buy every album and give each one the kind of attention I used to give albums when I bought them at the record store. There's so much music that it's hard for an album (or song) to really hold one's attention for any considerable amount of time, even if it's excellent. Streaming music services encourage a superficial gluttony where the listener is always on to the next "amazing" new song or band.
The iTunes Match issues are a big reason why I didn't bother with Apple Music. Apple has a penchant for making changes irreversible once you choose to migrate to one of their newer services, and I spent way too much time building and curating my music collection to let Apple Music start making arbitrary changes.
Also, the Music app in iOS 8.4 is big step back in functionality. I can no longer play the cached songs on my device without a network connection (the songs still consume space on the device, but are no longer accessible offline). And the less said about the changes to the Radio function the better. I use it in the car, but the frequent service outages and eliminating the ability to preset "My Stations" has made the feature more of an ordeal than something that delights this user.
As I've said before, Apple is trying to force feed a DRM-enabled music service onto a platform originally built for managing music files that users own. And in the process, they've diminished the functionality for people who frequently use their devices offline.
I don't know why anyone here is thinking there would be issues subscribing to Apple Music if you already use iTunes Match. I have 30,000 songs on my RAID drive that are in iTunes. There are so many that they aren't all up in iCloud. But I can iTunes Match play them without any Apple Music issues. I listen to Apple Music now more than my own music as the For You function is excellent and I discover new music with it constantly. I've had no issues listening to streaming Apple Music, my own drive-based music, or (when I'm in the middle of the ocean) listening to Offline Only songs I've downloaded onto my iPhone and does not require an Internet connection.
What EXACTLY are the problems you foresee if you switch to Apple Music?
How about going a step further and signing on with Google Contributor? Help prove it's a viable means of supporting content creators and providers, reducing the importance of ad revenue for those folks. https://www.google.com/contributor/welcome/
Right here is a great example, maybe the greatest example, and certainly the most ironic, of why Google, as a whole, imho, sux ballz. Beyond all the creepy data-gathering, we-know-what-you-are-going-to-think-next motives & methodologies they employ, there are tons of really bright people there working on lots of great shit. Like this. But how does it ultimately play out? How does it fit in? So I pay five dollars a month to see slightly fewer ads, maybe? Cool? Why not just pay for a subscription to your favorite sites like ai? Oh, wait. It's like, ok, that sort of solves a problem… except that it doesn't. The whole scheme is simply creating a workaround for no reason. It sounds so noble & creative on the surface, but then I realized how redundant it really is. It makes me think of the '97 Steve Jobs Q&A where he fielded the question about OpenDoc and made the point about how does it fit into a cohesive whole.
And that's the biggest problem with Google. Zero focus. They see a million cohesive wholes and they're trying to get a million balls into each one, when really, maybe they should just try to line up a couple thousand and get one ball through them all.
The only 2 reason why someone would leave the most successful company on earth is it was fired or he was offered more money elsewhere.
I have doubts that this secretive European company has offered a substantial amount of money to him or significantly more that what Apple is capable of paying him, so the only other option is that he was fired.
Of course Apple wont say that he was fired, neither he personally would confirm such a circumstance.
This may be just a speculation, but my theory is that he was "invited" to look for other options about his future professional carrier.
The only 2 reason why someone would leave the most successful company on earth is it was fired or he was offered more money elsewhere.
I have doubts that this secretive European company has offered a substantial amount of money to him or significantly more that what Apple is capable of paying him, so the only other option is that he was fired.
Of course Apple wont say that he was fired, neither he personally would confirm such a circumstance.
This may be just a speculation, but my theory is that he was "invited" to look for other options about his future professional carrier.
You don't think that occasionally some people might consider job/life satisfaction to be a higher priority than absolute remuneration level?
The only 2 reason why someone would leave the most successful company on earth is it was fired or he was offered more money elsewhere.
I have doubts that this secretive European company has offered a substantial amount of money to him or significantly more that what Apple is capable of paying him, so the only other option is that he was fired.
From what I've heard Apple renumeration is often not as competitive as their counterparts.
So here's where he's taking an office for himself:
'Rogers will leave California and move to Paris, where he will be chief digital officer at LVMH, the holding company behind iconic luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs and Bvlgari."
Comments
Here's the simple problem with Apple Music. There's not a lot of great music being created at this moment in history. It's hard to get people interested in something that is at a creative low point.
I completely disagree. Music is more diverse and interesting than it's ever been. There is so much great music out there that it's hard to keep up. And that leads to fatigue. I hear so much stuff that I like, but I can't possible buy every album and give each one the kind of attention I used to give albums when I bought them at the record store. There's so much music that it's hard for an album (or song) to really hold one's attention for any considerable amount of time, even if it's excellent. Streaming music services encourage a superficial gluttony where the listener is always on to the next "amazing" new song or band.
I don't know why anyone here is thinking there would be issues subscribing to Apple Music if you already use iTunes Match. I have 30,000 songs on my RAID drive that are in iTunes. There are so many that they aren't all up in iCloud. But I can iTunes Match play them without any Apple Music issues. I listen to Apple Music now more than my own music as the For You function is excellent and I discover new music with it constantly. I've had no issues listening to streaming Apple Music, my own drive-based music, or (when I'm in the middle of the ocean) listening to Offline Only songs I've downloaded onto my iPhone and does not require an Internet connection.
What EXACTLY are the problems you foresee if you switch to Apple Music?
What EXACTLY are the problems you foresee if you switch to Apple Music?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=apple+music+mess
Some lad called Jim had an issue.
Right here is a great example, maybe the greatest example, and certainly the most ironic, of why Google, as a whole, imho, sux ballz. Beyond all the creepy data-gathering, we-know-what-you-are-going-to-think-next motives & methodologies they employ, there are tons of really bright people there working on lots of great shit. Like this. But how does it ultimately play out? How does it fit in? So I pay five dollars a month to see slightly fewer ads, maybe? Cool? Why not just pay for a subscription to your favorite sites like ai? Oh, wait. It's like, ok, that sort of solves a problem… except that it doesn't. The whole scheme is simply creating a workaround for no reason. It sounds so noble & creative on the surface, but then I realized how redundant it really is. It makes me think of the '97 Steve Jobs Q&A where he fielded the question about OpenDoc and made the point about how does it fit into a cohesive whole.
And that's the biggest problem with Google. Zero focus. They see a million cohesive wholes and they're trying to get a million balls into each one, when really, maybe they should just try to line up a couple thousand and get one ball through them all.
The only 2 reason why someone would leave the most successful company on earth is it was fired or he was offered more money elsewhere.
I have doubts that this secretive European company has offered a substantial amount of money to him or significantly more that what Apple is capable of paying him, so the only other option is that he was fired.
Of course Apple wont say that he was fired, neither he personally would confirm such a circumstance.
This may be just a speculation, but my theory is that he was "invited" to look for other options about his future professional carrier.
The only 2 reason why someone would leave the most successful company on earth is it was fired or he was offered more money elsewhere.
I have doubts that this secretive European company has offered a substantial amount of money to him or significantly more that what Apple is capable of paying him, so the only other option is that he was fired.
Of course Apple wont say that he was fired, neither he personally would confirm such a circumstance.
This may be just a speculation, but my theory is that he was "invited" to look for other options about his future professional carrier.
You don't think that occasionally some people might consider job/life satisfaction to be a higher priority than absolute remuneration level?
Nobody would ever leave the rat race of Silicon Valley for the Cotswolds, are you mad?
The only 2 reason why someone would leave the most successful company on earth is it was fired or he was offered more money elsewhere.
I have doubts that this secretive European company has offered a substantial amount of money to him or significantly more that what Apple is capable of paying him, so the only other option is that he was fired.
From what I've heard Apple renumeration is often not as competitive as their counterparts.
That's not true at the executive level. He could be "rich enough".
'Rogers will leave California and move to Paris, where he will be chief digital officer at LVMH, the holding company behind iconic luxury brands like Louis Vuitton, Marc Jacobs and Bvlgari."
thx 9-5