Report insists Apple 'keeping options open' on phasing out iTunes downloads
Despite vocal denials by the company, Apple is still considering phasing out iTunes music downloads in favor of streaming services, a new report claims.
While the company doesn't have a definite timeline at this stage, Apple is allegedly changing the architecture of iTunes in such a way that it could more easily drop downloads if sales saw a precipitous decline, sources told Digital Music News. Paid downloads are already "entering a free fall" in 2016, the publication claimed, citing leaked preliminary statistics.
"It's a 'keeping their options open' thing," one source commented.
The iTunes revamp could appear at next week's Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. Apple's immediate goal is reportedly to better harmonize Apple Music and iTunes downloads, and simplify iTunes in general, dealing with long-standing public complaints about the software becoming unwieldy. While initially concentrated on music downloads, the software has gradually added functions related to videos, apps, books, and more, Apple Music being just the latest addition.
The overhaul will involve "making more sense" of iTunes downloads and streaming Apple Music content, the sources explained. One person mentioned that Apple is "definitely" not axing downloads at WWDC, while another added that executives could potentially "double down" on their commitment to downloads during the event to dispel rumors.
In May a Digital Music News report suggested that the end of iTunes downloads was inevitable, and could happen within as little as two years, though one source said the timeline could be three to four years or longer. Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr made a rare public statement in response, insisting that neither timeline was true.
Apple is unlikely to abandon downloads anytime soon, since while they contribute relatively little to the company's bottom line, iTunes is still the leading storefront in this sector and both labels and artists might be upset about losing their revenue share, which is generally much higher from track/album purchases than streaming. Killing downloads might risk licensing deals for Apple Music.
Services like Spotify and Apple Music are, however, increasingly overtaking downloads in popularity. Indeed rumors have indicated that Apple will at least revamp Apple Music's interface at WWDC, simultaneously expanding Beats radio.
While the company doesn't have a definite timeline at this stage, Apple is allegedly changing the architecture of iTunes in such a way that it could more easily drop downloads if sales saw a precipitous decline, sources told Digital Music News. Paid downloads are already "entering a free fall" in 2016, the publication claimed, citing leaked preliminary statistics.
"It's a 'keeping their options open' thing," one source commented.
The iTunes revamp could appear at next week's Worldwide Developers Conference in San Francisco. Apple's immediate goal is reportedly to better harmonize Apple Music and iTunes downloads, and simplify iTunes in general, dealing with long-standing public complaints about the software becoming unwieldy. While initially concentrated on music downloads, the software has gradually added functions related to videos, apps, books, and more, Apple Music being just the latest addition.
The overhaul will involve "making more sense" of iTunes downloads and streaming Apple Music content, the sources explained. One person mentioned that Apple is "definitely" not axing downloads at WWDC, while another added that executives could potentially "double down" on their commitment to downloads during the event to dispel rumors.
In May a Digital Music News report suggested that the end of iTunes downloads was inevitable, and could happen within as little as two years, though one source said the timeline could be three to four years or longer. Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr made a rare public statement in response, insisting that neither timeline was true.
Apple is unlikely to abandon downloads anytime soon, since while they contribute relatively little to the company's bottom line, iTunes is still the leading storefront in this sector and both labels and artists might be upset about losing their revenue share, which is generally much higher from track/album purchases than streaming. Killing downloads might risk licensing deals for Apple Music.
Services like Spotify and Apple Music are, however, increasingly overtaking downloads in popularity. Indeed rumors have indicated that Apple will at least revamp Apple Music's interface at WWDC, simultaneously expanding Beats radio.
Comments
I fought and fought for Cook; Jobs' hand-picked man. But I'm through.
I have no idea what any of that even means.
But with streaming? Music seems to just be something consumable now. It's everyone streaming the hits of month from whatever genre. Nothing is owned. There are no idiosyncrasies in recordings. Even in the classical genre, orchestras all sound virtually the same now. Even as a music educator, I find myself saying "well, I want to hear that one song from...." and turning it on. There's no relationship with music anymore. No one has a friend over to show him his audio setup, or listen to a new track or album. No one worries about better quality or reducing noise, or argues about the positives and negative aspects of analog distortion.
On the other hand, we can listen to virtually anything at the tap of a finger. Any genre. Any song. From almost any time. There are digital tools for finding new music, and a band doesn't have to sell 500,000 copies on their first album to make it. So I don't know what the net effect is going to be. I do know that the change in the music industry over the past 15 years is stunning, and probably unprecedented for any industry. It's like there not being cars 15 years from now.
On a related note, I'd be thrilled if, as an Apple Music subscriber, aka-someone-who-is-paying-for-access-to-the-whole-library-already, Apple would STOP showing me versions of the iTunes Store with prices and buy buttons. I'm not paying $14.99 per month so that I can also buy songs.
On rare occasions a CD with manufacturing errors or surface damage may result in a rip with an audible pop or tick. It happens infrequently enough that it's worth ripping your CDs and only replacing "bad" tracks (if you even wind up with any) with iTunes purchases.
The other consideration is that it is technically possible for the label to produce an iTunes track that is ever-so-slightly technically superior to a CD version by not having to reduce the word length to 16 bit (assuming a higher depth master) but the difference is infinitesimal for a couple reasons.
First, most modern music (with the possible exception of a few audiophile classical titles) is mastered to maximize loudness. This completely eliminates the benefits of a longer digital word, since the only benefit of more bits is wider range between the loudest and quietest values it can store.
Second, most humans would not be able to detect the difference in range between 16 bit and 24 bit even under ideal circumstances.
But it is possible that the version obtained from iTunes Match is not obtained from the same source material as the CD. It may be a different mastering. In most cases you won't be able to tell the difference between a CD rip and an iTunes Match version (unless the CD was ripped at <160 kbps).
EDIT: I wanted to add is if you are going to rip a ton of CD's, DO NOT use iTunes Match. It will ruin your collection. I know a lot of people in the music industry so my iTunes library is mostly filled with studio masters. When I first tried Apple Music, my whole library of studio masters was deleted. I waited a few months to give Apple Music another try and same thing happened on my second Mac. Thankfully I didn't have much music because it was a test. Until Apple Music doesn't require iTunes Match to download music, I wouldn't use it at all.
I've had many discussions with people who focus on bit depth, as you are. What you're saying is true (indistinguishable between 16/24 depth), though I really don't think that's what is affecting most recordings. Compression is much more of a factor, but so is analog vs. digital in my opinion. Technically, the human ear should not be able to notice that a CD sampled at 44.1khz is taking "pictures" of the sound wave instead of reproducing it. Human frequency range tops out around 20khz. However, I've always questioned whether there is a subconscious effect or intangible effect on timbre with certain kinds of music (notably, classical genre). To me, there can be a certain antiseptic quality to digital recording, particularly with strings and brass. Many have argued that what some of us perceive as "warmth" is really distortion (particularly with those who use tube amps), but I don't think we'll ever solve that for sure. All that said, the advantages of digital are overwhelming compared to any minute difference one might hear. The lack of noise and extended dynamic range alone make the case.