Cook says Apple not in music streaming for the money, touts human content curation

124

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 87
    mubaili said:
    I think Cook is misinformed about AI. An AI that can beat Go’s best players are most likely can recommend a better music with better “soul” than most music curators that Apple can hire. I am worried about Apple’s AI effort if its CEO is this misinformed.
    That’s where you are wrong. AI has only certain deep thinking capabilities ,not general ones like the ones in our brains.
    Agreed.  
  • Reply 62 of 87
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    Even when you do migrate your iTunes library into Apple Music, the songs are replaced with Apple's versions -- yeh, it's the same song and same artist, but a different version.   I have older songs in my library that got replaced with remakes from 30 years later -- totally different.   And, if Apple doesn't have that particular song in its library, it then disappears from yours.
    What you’re referring to is the matching functionality built into Apple Music. As far as I can tell, AM attempts to match songs by name and length, which sometimes means a song you have can be matched incorrectly. If you subscribe to iTunes Match that won’t happen. 

    I ran into that problem a few years ago. I have a bunch of “custom” songs in my iTunes library. As an example, I may have a song where the song starts normally through the first verse and chorus, then starts again from the beginning and plays through to the end. I have a version of Praise You by Fatboy Slim that falls into a category like that. It is essential I have that specific version. But AM “matched” the version I have to a very different remix of that song that was unusable for my needs, but had the same title and almost the same length. 

    Switching to iTunes Match solves that. The version I have has been uploaded and is the one I get when I need it. 
    Rayz2016
  • Reply 63 of 87
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 5,635member
    thrang said:
    Well, I wish it were true for me - I like Brian Eno, Peter Gabriel, Talking Heads, Philip Glass, Steve Reich, King Crimson/Robert Fripp, and Aphex Twin  among others, and 90% of the "For You" offerings each week suck beyond belief. Why am I still being fed hip-hop or rap which I can't stand? I've set up Apple Music multiple times for genres and artists, and use the Like and Dislike buttons frequently... So the human curators are not doing a very good job of artists and genre matching - or I listen to fairly unique artists!
    I agree with this, AM keeps putting rap and R&B type songs into my For You, despite me selecting Dislike on them every single time and my Loves being my typical genres.
    gatorguy
  • Reply 64 of 87
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 5,635member
    Being 50 years old and watching Apple and Microsoft grow from startups to billion dollar companies, I think I am entitled to say that more and more people are seeing through Tim Cook and Phil Schiller's bulls***. I work for a company that has a similar strategy. If you're told everything is great, then it is, while most people whisper that it's not. Lots of transparancy. Drink the Kool Aid. Everything will be fine. I love many of Apple's products, but over the years, Apple has turned into the Microsoft of 1995. Kumbaya, give everyone a big hug, then add 30%. When Steve died, the DNA of the company died with him. It's just going to take years for that to be realized. Maybe John Sculley would like to come back with his big mouth and almost bankrupt Apple again so they can start from scratch.
    What drivel. 
    Rayz2016pscooter63
  • Reply 65 of 87
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,125member
    The lack of Apple Music support in most playback devices refutes the claim that Apple isn't in it for the money.  AM is like many other Apple properties ...it's a carrot to buy the iOS/Mac OS ecosystem.  That's a for profit endeavor. 
    gatorguy
  • Reply 66 of 87
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 2,927member
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    Even when you do migrate your iTunes library into Apple Music, the songs are replaced with Apple's versions -- yeh, it's the same song and same artist, but a different version.   I have older songs in my library that got replaced with remakes from 30 years later -- totally different.   And, if Apple doesn't have that particular song in its library, it then disappears from yours.
    What you’re referring to is the matching functionality built into Apple Music. As far as I can tell, AM attempts to match songs by name and length, which sometimes means a song you have can be matched incorrectly. If you subscribe to iTunes Match that won’t happen. 

    I ran into that problem a few years ago. I have a bunch of “custom” songs in my iTunes library. As an example, I may have a song where the song starts normally through the first verse and chorus, then starts again from the beginning and plays through to the end. I have a version of Praise You by Fatboy Slim that falls into a category like that. It is essential I have that specific version. But AM “matched” the version I have to a very different remix of that song that was unusable for my needs, but had the same title and almost the same length. 

    Switching to iTunes Match solves that. The version I have has been uploaded and is the one I get when I need it. 
    I'm not sure I get that:   "iTunes Match", by its very name suggests that they match your particular version of a song to something in their library --- which means that you get back what's in their library rather than yours.

    I just want my own library back with its own version of the songs and the genre's that I assigned them to.
  • Reply 67 of 87
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    Even when you do migrate your iTunes library into Apple Music, the songs are replaced with Apple's versions -- yeh, it's the same song and same artist, but a different version.   I have older songs in my library that got replaced with remakes from 30 years later -- totally different.   And, if Apple doesn't have that particular song in its library, it then disappears from yours.
    What you’re referring to is the matching functionality built into Apple Music. As far as I can tell, AM attempts to match songs by name and length, which sometimes means a song you have can be matched incorrectly. If you subscribe to iTunes Match that won’t happen. 

    I ran into that problem a few years ago. I have a bunch of “custom” songs in my iTunes library. As an example, I may have a song where the song starts normally through the first verse and chorus, then starts again from the beginning and plays through to the end. I have a version of Praise You by Fatboy Slim that falls into a category like that. It is essential I have that specific version. But AM “matched” the version I have to a very different remix of that song that was unusable for my needs, but had the same title and almost the same length. 

    Switching to iTunes Match solves that. The version I have has been uploaded and is the one I get when I need it. 
    I'm not sure I get that:   "iTunes Match", by its very name suggests that they match your particular version of a song to something in their library --- which means that you get back what's in their library rather than yours.

    I just want my own library back with its own version of the songs and the genre's that I assigned them to.
    Yes, iTunes Match matches the exact songs or uploads yours if there isn’t an exact match. Apple Music doesn’t do that, it just finds a close match
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 68 of 87
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,915member
    Not to disagree with Tim but as the head of Apple, yes, you ARE in it for the money. As we are all aware, in the past Apple almost went under because they had run out of the stuff and Microsoft made them a deal. Just make sure that never happens again, right? :)
    Just because that happened in the past doesn’t in any way imply that forever Apple’s management team needs to be ‘in it for the money.’  It does not logically follow; just sounds like reactionary and simplistic analysis.  We’ve already got enough of that from the financial community, thanks. 
    When a company is almost literally swimming in pools full of money, it’s easy to lose sight of the fundamentals. Yes, they’re in it for the money. They’re a business, first and foremost.
  • Reply 69 of 87
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 29,915member
    wuchmee said:
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    And voice activated equalizer settings! That's my must-have.
    I’d just like to have customizable EQ settings for every song on the Music app. It’s insane this basic function is unavailable for iOS.
  • Reply 70 of 87
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,023member
    Soli said:
    Soli said:
    davgreg said:
    Life was sucked out of Rock and Roll by people like Lee Abrams who launched the Superstars format in the 1970s that concentrated on a rather smallish list of established artists and their most popular songs rather than let the audience discover and decide what they wanted. Prior to his consultancy, stations used program directors that listened to the Club DJs, talked to the concert promoters, tabulated local call in requests and their own judgement to determine playlists and rotations. This resulted in a Rock station in New York sounding different from one in Philadelphia and one in Memphis sounding different from one in Atlanta. It also helped keep rock vibrant and similar things happened with country and Soul.

    After Superstars delivered large audiences content to hearing mostly the same stuff over and over, the same thing was applied to other formats.

    In streaming land, the tech geeks think they can predict what you will like from a relatively short playlist. That may work for some, but not for everyone- especially those with broad and eclectic tastes. We would all be better off returning to a more regionalized playlist where local artists and favorites can gain traction before breaking out nationally.

    The one thing that bothers me the most about streaming from whomever is that the artists are not adequately compensated for their work. Peter Frampton recently tweeted this: "For 55 million streams of, ‘Baby I Love Your Way’, I got $1,700".

    Apple should pay artists more or get out of streaming.
    I pretty much disagree with most of your antiquated views on music and disagree with the notion of Apple getting out of the streaming music business when they're one of the highest payers (looks like third behind Napster and Tidal (neither of which seem very popular which means that Apple is probably a much higher earner for musicians than those two simply by being on Apple Music), but I will say that if Tim Cook is serious about his not being in the music streaming business for the money it would go a long way to prove that by, at the very least, paying artists more per listen than anyone else out there. Personally, I use Spotify and I look forward to it (and SiriusXM) app to show up on the Apple Watch later this year, but if Apple came out with a statement that they were going to, say, triple how much they pay artists I'd sign up right away.

    Here is the Frampton tweet you mention:

    Hmmm, that works out to 0.000030909 cents per stream. Per BGR, this NYT article claims Apple will be paying artists 0.2 cents per stream which works out to $1 for every 500.

    https://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/25/business/media/apple-signs-thousands-of-independent-labels-in-royalty-deal.html

    Something seems off here. I recall Frampton was a long time holdout to letting his music go digital. Perhaps he’s trying to make things appear worse than they are to justify his holdout stance. Going by The Times’ figures he would have gotten $110,000 for 55 million streams (on Apple Music). 

    I think I read that Apple was trying to negotiate their rates down, so maybe this isn’t accurate, but I doubt they dropped as far as Frampton claims in that tweet. 
    I didn't do the math but I don't think Frampton is lying or mistaken, so I'm assuming that what he's getting as payment is just a cut of all the other people between him and Apple.
    Frampton probably isn't lying, but he should have issues with his record label, not Apple, Spotify, or any other streaming service. I'm sure most artists don't like how physical media is dying because they make more off that than streaming. If I'm not mistaken, I believe he sued A&M Records several years ago, but not sure what the outcome was. 
  • Reply 71 of 87
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,758member
    dewme said:
    foggyhill said:
    dewme said:
    I can only assume that Tim is basing his “not in it for the money” to be a relative term versus the margins that Apple expects from other products in their portfolio. If Apple were to triple (or whatever) what they pay artists for streaming and pass the cost along to subscribers they would see a mass exodus of subscribers to other, cheaper services. I guess they could eat the difference by not passing along the additional cost to subscribers, but then they’d face the wrath of shareholders, many of whom are less financially altruistic about Apple's generosity to musical artists, content owners, and songwriters.

    As far as having humans in the music curation role is concerned, Apple is obviously promoting it as being significant because that’s where they’ve invested their money and are trying to differentiate from other streaming vendors. I think I love music as much as Tim Cook does, it’s a huge part of my life, it’s very personal, but Apple’s music curation has never influenced my musical choices or discovery process in any way. No big deal. It’s not a factor for me, but if other folks find it useful, good for them. No harm, no foul. Rock on.


    If Apple pays Music Producers a lot more than other services, how on earth would be people go to "other services" when those services would not have all the music that they have. Apple's cost structure will provide an unbearable pressure on the like of Spotify' going forward and I'm pretty sure I know who will crack.
    The only way subscribers wouldn't leave Apple Music is if the content owners were able to exert the same concessions on other streaming services that they get from Apple. From the looks of things it doesn't appear that the context owners truly have the kind of control they desire over the content if people on the royalty collection side of the equation feel like they're getting screwed. I'm assuming that the streaming services like Apple must have negotiated payment structure and someone with authority on the content production side of the deal has signed off on the deal. Why are artists like Peter Frampton taking their grievances to the court of public opinion and trying to legislate for change instead of hiring high priced lawyers and slapping down subpoenas on those who are unfairly taking their earned profits? They are obviously not negotiating from a position of power, but is this because of Apple/Spotify/et al, or because of other music industry specific factors? 

    There's a certain stink around the whole music streaming business. Something doesn't quite add up and fingers of blame are pointing in every direction. I have no idea who is really calling the shots on compensation. When it was iTunes and 99 cents a song or $9.99 for an album music acquisition, for me at least, was straightforward and felt transactional. I had some sense of ownership of my music library, although that was probably a myth. With Apple Music I have a massive selection of music at an incredibly low cost to me but at what cost to those who produce it? As an outside it appears that the music industry has turned into a winner-take-all game and only the top 0.001% of artists/producers have to means to personally negotiate. They rest of them are at the mercy of someone else. Who is that someone else?


    Content producer of new catalog items, new music, have pricing power. People who produced music in the 1960s-1990s, hopefully already have had their money cause they're not going to get it with the pricing power they have now. Most often they don't even own their own content by now. 

    Apple by paying more for content will inevitably put pressure on Spotify's bottom line; Drake or Taylor Swift won't accept significantly less from other streamers than they get from Apple.

    Songwriters often keep their royalties longer and while Frampton complains about low payments, he's lucky to have any payments at all for music 50 years old.
    Nobody's living off that even when most playback of old music was on the radio.
  • Reply 72 of 87
    LatkoLatko Posts: 123member
    cropr said:
    does that mean apple will distribute all profits directly back to the artist.
    I dont't think so: a CEO never make a controversial statement without a very specific reason

    I understand the comment of Cook as follows: we make a very low profit (or even a loss) with Apple Music, and we are preparing the public for an announcement about it in the near future. 

    Of course I can be wrong, but history has shown that CEOs typically come with such statements if they do not make a profit with a product.


    If you don’t want to make a profit, go revive the Mac line (incl. mini)
    edited August 8
  • Reply 73 of 87
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,227member
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    Even when you do migrate your iTunes library into Apple Music, the songs are replaced with Apple's versions -- yeh, it's the same song and same artist, but a different version.   I have older songs in my library that got replaced with remakes from 30 years later -- totally different.   And, if Apple doesn't have that particular song in its library, it then disappears from yours.
    What you’re referring to is the matching functionality built into Apple Music. As far as I can tell, AM attempts to match songs by name and length, which sometimes means a song you have can be matched incorrectly. If you subscribe to iTunes Match that won’t happen. 

    I ran into that problem a few years ago. I have a bunch of “custom” songs in my iTunes library. As an example, I may have a song where the song starts normally through the first verse and chorus, then starts again from the beginning and plays through to the end. I have a version of Praise You by Fatboy Slim that falls into a category like that. It is essential I have that specific version. But AM “matched” the version I have to a very different remix of that song that was unusable for my needs, but had the same title and almost the same length. 

    Switching to iTunes Match solves that. The version I have has been uploaded and is the one I get when I need it. 
    I'm not sure I get that:   "iTunes Match", by its very name suggests that they match your particular version of a song to something in their library --- which means that you get back what's in their library rather than yours.

    I just want my own library back with its own version of the songs and the genre's that I assigned them to.
    Yes, iTunes Match matches the exact songs or uploads yours if there isn’t an exact match. Apple Music doesn’t do that, it just finds a close match
    Mmmm.  I don’t think this is right. 

    https://www.imore.com/seeing-matched-tracks-as-apple-music-heres-fix




    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 74 of 87
    Rayz2016 said:
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    Even when you do migrate your iTunes library into Apple Music, the songs are replaced with Apple's versions -- yeh, it's the same song and same artist, but a different version.   I have older songs in my library that got replaced with remakes from 30 years later -- totally different.   And, if Apple doesn't have that particular song in its library, it then disappears from yours.
    What you’re referring to is the matching functionality built into Apple Music. As far as I can tell, AM attempts to match songs by name and length, which sometimes means a song you have can be matched incorrectly. If you subscribe to iTunes Match that won’t happen. 

    I ran into that problem a few years ago. I have a bunch of “custom” songs in my iTunes library. As an example, I may have a song where the song starts normally through the first verse and chorus, then starts again from the beginning and plays through to the end. I have a version of Praise You by Fatboy Slim that falls into a category like that. It is essential I have that specific version. But AM “matched” the version I have to a very different remix of that song that was unusable for my needs, but had the same title and almost the same length. 

    Switching to iTunes Match solves that. The version I have has been uploaded and is the one I get when I need it. 
    I'm not sure I get that:   "iTunes Match", by its very name suggests that they match your particular version of a song to something in their library --- which means that you get back what's in their library rather than yours.

    I just want my own library back with its own version of the songs and the genre's that I assigned them to.
    Yes, iTunes Match matches the exact songs or uploads yours if there isn’t an exact match. Apple Music doesn’t do that, it just finds a close match
    Mmmm.  I don’t think this is right. 

    https://www.imore.com/seeing-matched-tracks-as-apple-music-heres-fix


    I hope that’s accurate, but in my experience it isn’t. I’m not going to risk it. My current setup is working when the prior one didn’t. 
  • Reply 75 of 87
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 4,227member

    Not to disagree with Tim but as the head of Apple, yes, you ARE in it for the money. As we are all aware, in the past Apple almost went under because they had run out of the stuff and Microsoft made them a deal. Just make sure that never happens again, right? :)
    Just because that happened in the past doesn’t in any way imply that forever Apple’s management team needs to be ‘in it for the money.’  It does not logically follow; just sounds like reactionary and simplistic analysis.  We’ve already got enough of that from the financial community, thanks. 
    When a company is almost literally swimming in pools full of money, it’s easy to lose sight of the fundamentals. Yes, they’re in it for the money. They’re a business, first and foremost.
    Cook said they’re not in the streaming service for the money. Not sure why everyone surprised by that: if anyone believes there is significant money to be made from streaming then they’re deluded. The more users you have then the higher your operating costs. Streaming is just another service that draws people to the Apple ecosystem. 

    And also bear in mind that Apple’s notion of “being in it for the money” will be a lot different to that of a company that isn’t sitting on $290billion in cash. 
    edited August 8 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 76 of 87
    Rayz2016 said:

    Not to disagree with Tim but as the head of Apple, yes, you ARE in it for the money. As we are all aware, in the past Apple almost went under because they had run out of the stuff and Microsoft made them a deal. Just make sure that never happens again, right? :)
    Just because that happened in the past doesn’t in any way imply that forever Apple’s management team needs to be ‘in it for the money.’  It does not logically follow; just sounds like reactionary and simplistic analysis.  We’ve already got enough of that from the financial community, thanks. 
    When a company is almost literally swimming in pools full of money, it’s easy to lose sight of the fundamentals. Yes, they’re in it for the money. They’re a business, first and foremost.
    Cook said they’re not in the streaming service for the money. Not sure why everyone surprised by that: if anyone believes there is significant money to be made from streaming then they’re deluded. The more users you have then the higher your operating costs. Streaming is just another service that draws people to the Apple ecosystem. 

    And also bear in mind that Apple’s notion of “being in it for the money” will be a lot different to that of a company that isn’t sitting on $290billion in cash. 
    Yeah, I’m with you. Cook didn’t say Apple isn’t in business to make money, they clearly are. He said they aren’t in music streaming for the money, which by several accounts so far is pretty standard for the industry. How many years has Apple said iTunes Music Store was a break-even business? Why should we assume that that has changed?

    I think it’s @StrangeDays who says “words have meaning”. This is a failure of basic reading comprehension. 
    edited August 8 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 77 of 87
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 2,927member
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    Even when you do migrate your iTunes library into Apple Music, the songs are replaced with Apple's versions -- yeh, it's the same song and same artist, but a different version.   I have older songs in my library that got replaced with remakes from 30 years later -- totally different.   And, if Apple doesn't have that particular song in its library, it then disappears from yours.
    What you’re referring to is the matching functionality built into Apple Music. As far as I can tell, AM attempts to match songs by name and length, which sometimes means a song you have can be matched incorrectly. If you subscribe to iTunes Match that won’t happen. 

    I ran into that problem a few years ago. I have a bunch of “custom” songs in my iTunes library. As an example, I may have a song where the song starts normally through the first verse and chorus, then starts again from the beginning and plays through to the end. I have a version of Praise You by Fatboy Slim that falls into a category like that. It is essential I have that specific version. But AM “matched” the version I have to a very different remix of that song that was unusable for my needs, but had the same title and almost the same length. 

    Switching to iTunes Match solves that. The version I have has been uploaded and is the one I get when I need it. 
    I'm not sure I get that:   "iTunes Match", by its very name suggests that they match your particular version of a song to something in their library --- which means that you get back what's in their library rather than yours.

    I just want my own library back with its own version of the songs and the genre's that I assigned them to.
    Yes, iTunes Match matches the exact songs or uploads yours if there isn’t an exact match. Apple Music doesn’t do that, it just finds a close match
    Ahhh!   Thanks for the clarification!
  • Reply 78 of 87
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 2,927member
    Rayz2016 said:
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    Even when you do migrate your iTunes library into Apple Music, the songs are replaced with Apple's versions -- yeh, it's the same song and same artist, but a different version.   I have older songs in my library that got replaced with remakes from 30 years later -- totally different.   And, if Apple doesn't have that particular song in its library, it then disappears from yours.
    What you’re referring to is the matching functionality built into Apple Music. As far as I can tell, AM attempts to match songs by name and length, which sometimes means a song you have can be matched incorrectly. If you subscribe to iTunes Match that won’t happen. 

    I ran into that problem a few years ago. I have a bunch of “custom” songs in my iTunes library. As an example, I may have a song where the song starts normally through the first verse and chorus, then starts again from the beginning and plays through to the end. I have a version of Praise You by Fatboy Slim that falls into a category like that. It is essential I have that specific version. But AM “matched” the version I have to a very different remix of that song that was unusable for my needs, but had the same title and almost the same length. 

    Switching to iTunes Match solves that. The version I have has been uploaded and is the one I get when I need it. 
    I'm not sure I get that:   "iTunes Match", by its very name suggests that they match your particular version of a song to something in their library --- which means that you get back what's in their library rather than yours.

    I just want my own library back with its own version of the songs and the genre's that I assigned them to.
    Yes, iTunes Match matches the exact songs or uploads yours if there isn’t an exact match. Apple Music doesn’t do that, it just finds a close match
    Mmmm.  I don’t think this is right. 

    https://www.imore.com/seeing-matched-tracks-as-apple-music-heres-fix




    Ahh!  Now that makes sense:   When I originally subscribed to Apple Music my library (at least on my phone) was replaced with the streaming version (if it existed) from THEIR library.   But they fixed that and I can start over with the various procedures listed in the article.   Cool!   Thanks!
  • Reply 79 of 87
    boltsfan17boltsfan17 Posts: 2,023member
    Rayz2016 said:
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    Even when you do migrate your iTunes library into Apple Music, the songs are replaced with Apple's versions -- yeh, it's the same song and same artist, but a different version.   I have older songs in my library that got replaced with remakes from 30 years later -- totally different.   And, if Apple doesn't have that particular song in its library, it then disappears from yours.
    What you’re referring to is the matching functionality built into Apple Music. As far as I can tell, AM attempts to match songs by name and length, which sometimes means a song you have can be matched incorrectly. If you subscribe to iTunes Match that won’t happen. 

    I ran into that problem a few years ago. I have a bunch of “custom” songs in my iTunes library. As an example, I may have a song where the song starts normally through the first verse and chorus, then starts again from the beginning and plays through to the end. I have a version of Praise You by Fatboy Slim that falls into a category like that. It is essential I have that specific version. But AM “matched” the version I have to a very different remix of that song that was unusable for my needs, but had the same title and almost the same length. 

    Switching to iTunes Match solves that. The version I have has been uploaded and is the one I get when I need it. 
    I'm not sure I get that:   "iTunes Match", by its very name suggests that they match your particular version of a song to something in their library --- which means that you get back what's in their library rather than yours.

    I just want my own library back with its own version of the songs and the genre's that I assigned them to.
    Yes, iTunes Match matches the exact songs or uploads yours if there isn’t an exact match. Apple Music doesn’t do that, it just finds a close match
    Mmmm.  I don’t think this is right. 

    https://www.imore.com/seeing-matched-tracks-as-apple-music-heres-fix


    I hope that’s accurate, but in my experience it isn’t. I’m not going to risk it. My current setup is working when the prior one didn’t. 
    If you have a large music library, I wouldn't use Apple Music unless you create a second iTunes library. Apple Music destroyed my music library twice. I gave Apple Music one last chance when I learned you could create a separate iTunes library. So far, it's been fine using a second library. 
    GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 80 of 87
    Rayz2016 said:
    If you’re really not in it for the money, HOW ABOUT YOU LET VOICE CONTROLS ON THE HOMEPOD CONTROL AN ITUNES LIBRARY OF MUSIC RATHER THAN JUST APPLE MUSIC, THEN.

    That’s $350 they’re never going to see from me (hell, I was going to get two of them), because I’m not using streaming services. Ever. Local content, only and always. Fix the HomePod, Apple.
    Even when you do migrate your iTunes library into Apple Music, the songs are replaced with Apple's versions -- yeh, it's the same song and same artist, but a different version.   I have older songs in my library that got replaced with remakes from 30 years later -- totally different.   And, if Apple doesn't have that particular song in its library, it then disappears from yours.
    What you’re referring to is the matching functionality built into Apple Music. As far as I can tell, AM attempts to match songs by name and length, which sometimes means a song you have can be matched incorrectly. If you subscribe to iTunes Match that won’t happen. 

    I ran into that problem a few years ago. I have a bunch of “custom” songs in my iTunes library. As an example, I may have a song where the song starts normally through the first verse and chorus, then starts again from the beginning and plays through to the end. I have a version of Praise You by Fatboy Slim that falls into a category like that. It is essential I have that specific version. But AM “matched” the version I have to a very different remix of that song that was unusable for my needs, but had the same title and almost the same length. 

    Switching to iTunes Match solves that. The version I have has been uploaded and is the one I get when I need it. 
    I'm not sure I get that:   "iTunes Match", by its very name suggests that they match your particular version of a song to something in their library --- which means that you get back what's in their library rather than yours.

    I just want my own library back with its own version of the songs and the genre's that I assigned them to.
    Yes, iTunes Match matches the exact songs or uploads yours if there isn’t an exact match. Apple Music doesn’t do that, it just finds a close match
    Mmmm.  I don’t think this is right. 

    https://www.imore.com/seeing-matched-tracks-as-apple-music-heres-fix


    I hope that’s accurate, but in my experience it isn’t. I’m not going to risk it. My current setup is working when the prior one didn’t. 
    If you have a large music library, I wouldn't use Apple Music unless you create a second iTunes library. Apple Music destroyed my music library twice. I gave Apple Music one last chance when I learned you could create a separate iTunes library. So far, it's been fine using a second library. 
    For a long time I used AM with iCloud music library off. That worked fine, but using iTunes Match with it is much nicer. 
    GeorgeBMac
Sign In or Register to comment.