Apple Music web browser player launches in beta

Posted:
in iPod + iTunes + AppleTV edited September 5
Apple is making it possible for subscribers of Apple Music to be able to listen to songs on the streaming service via a browser, with a public beta launch enabling users to log into their accounts via a web-based player for the first time.

Apple Music on the web


A new site called beta.music.apple.com offers an interface similar to what is offered when users view the service in the iOS Music app or via macOS iTunes. While it is possible for anyone to browse the service via the site, users can only listen to songs in a preview without logging in with their Apple ID.

For all users, the left-hand bar offers the For You, Browse, and Radio sections to explore, standard elements of Apple Music, with the music playback interface appearing near the top of the browser window. At the bottom left is a link labeled "Open in Music," which takes users to the Music app or iTunes , depending on the operating system.

Unsubscribed users are also offered the ability to sign up for the Apple Music trial via a banner at the bottom of the screen. Subscribers logging in to the site can access other elements, including their library and saved playlists, as well as being able to listen to full-length versions of songs.

Given the service is in beta, it is likely that more features from the main apps will be added to the web-based experience over time.

A browser version of Apple Music has been in the works for a while, with a web player first making a appearance in June 2018, ahead of that year's WWDC. "MusicKit on the Web" was subsequently introduced at the developer conference, allowing developers to embed tracks into a webpage.

Aside from apps, HomePod, and the new web experience, users are able to access Apple Music in a number of other non-Apple ways, including through Amazon's Echo range via an Alexa skill, some Samsung Smart TVs, and via an integration with the Porsche Taycan's infotainment system.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 32
    So this is going to replace iTunes for Windows I assume?
    greg uvanlolliver
  • Reply 2 of 32
    I was actually thinking the same thing. Maybe they'll never update iTunes/Apple Music for Windows. Maybe this is it. I never imagined they'd do this, and I don't know why I'd use it rather than the new macOS Apple Music app. But, for other platforms? Even Linux users might be able to use this.
  • Reply 3 of 32
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,924member
    So this is going to replace iTunes for Windows I assume?
    I doubt it. Would be pretty useless for those with large libraries of ripped or downloaded music.
    What it will allow is the use of Apple Music on a work computer where I can't install iTunes.
    CloudTalkinlolliverfastasleepStrangeDayslostkiwi
  • Reply 4 of 32
    So this is going to replace iTunes for Windows I assume?
    I highly doubt it because it does not appear that the web interface allows for smart playlist management, and certainly does not provide for syncing a local iTunes library (for those non-Apple Music/ iCloud Music Library users). If you're not an Apple Music/ iCloud Music Library user, you have to have iTunes to manage your playlists and sync your devices. So IMO, iTunes for Windows is highly likely here to stay for some time. Perhaps someday Apple may split up iTunes for Windows into Music, TV, Podcast, etc. but they'd have to find a way to handle syncing iOS devices with a local library within a "Music for Windows" app (on a Mac, the upcoming "Music" app won't sync devices, that will be done via Finder).
    edited September 5 JWSCStrangeDays
  • Reply 5 of 32
    greg uvan said:
    I was actually thinking the same thing. Maybe they'll never update iTunes/Apple Music for Windows. Maybe this is it. I never imagined they'd do this, and I don't know why I'd use it rather than the new macOS Apple Music app. But, for other platforms? Even Linux users might be able to use this.
    I use Linux at work (Manjaro Linux, an Arch-based system); and it does not work yet using Firefox nor Chromium. It is complaining about not being able to install my Apple ID. Which is more than likely some sort of permission problem, or Apple just doesn't know how to deal with Arch yet.
    edited September 5
  • Reply 6 of 32
    I hope this signals they'll open up Apple Music to Google Assistant devices like Google Home and Smart Displays. It only works on Echo devices as of now..
    CloudTalkinCarnage
  • Reply 7 of 32
    mobirdmobird Posts: 273member
    I would like to see Apple spend some time and resources reworking Music on iOS. There are so many features and capabilities that could be added to the app.
  • Reply 8 of 32
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,310member
    mobird said:
    I would like to see Apple spend some time and resources reworking Music on iOS. There are so many features and capabilities that could be added to the app.
    So name a few instead of just dropping this request on the floor.
    lollivern2itivguyStrangeDaysRayz2016
  • Reply 9 of 32
    lkrupp said:
    mobird said:
    I would like to see Apple spend some time and resources reworking Music on iOS. There are so many features and capabilities that could be added to the app.
    So name a few instead of just dropping this request on the floor.
    I'll post what I prefer to post. There have been many discussions here on AI with many chiming in on what they would like to see in Music.
    applesnorangeshumanaftera11
  • Reply 10 of 32
    Once this is finalized, I predict an uptick of AM being played on work lap and desktops.  
    fastasleep
  • Reply 11 of 32
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,140member
    So what's driving the UI?

    Any sign this is SwiftUI on Web and therefore a sign of Apps for iCloud coming in the future.
    Catalyst apps would make a great lead into that project. iOS app to mac to web then to platform optomised runtimes for other platforms. Secures Apples market in developer tools and hardware sales. Yes been done before but always with clunky bad interface

    Yes lots of apps the like of which drive hardware sales will need to stay native but still lots of apps could benefit from SwiftWebObjects if that's what this is.
  • Reply 12 of 32
    Wow, this is awesome and totally unexpected. Yet another answer for those "what do all those Apple employees do all day" commenters.
    StrangeDays
  • Reply 13 of 32
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,010member
    mattinoz said:
    So what's driving the UI?

    Any sign this is SwiftUI on Web and therefore a sign of Apps for iCloud coming in the future.
    Catalyst apps would make a great lead into that project. iOS app to mac to web then to platform optomised runtimes for other platforms. Secures Apples market in developer tools and hardware sales. Yes been done before but always with clunky bad interface

    Yes lots of apps the like of which drive hardware sales will need to stay native but still lots of apps could benefit from SwiftWebObjects if that's what this is.

    Don’t remember what it’s called, but it’s probably the same UI framework they use for all their iCloud apps.

    However, it would be great if there’s a plan to make Swift an alternative to Javascript.
    edited September 5
  • Reply 14 of 32
    mattinozmattinoz Posts: 1,140member
    Airpods double tap or take out doesn't stop playback.

    lostkiwi
  • Reply 15 of 32
    mcdavemcdave Posts: 1,178member
    Why?
  • Reply 16 of 32
    Yet more unwanted features in Music, while not fixing its nightmarish interface or the hundreds of flaws, some of them just unbelievable. After ever a decade paying for iTunes Match or Music, I finally moved to Tidal. Within hours I was wondering why I was so stubborn that I didn't that before. Every single aspect if way better. To start with, you can - yes, really-, *search* for content, with pre-emptive typing (almost never you need to type the whole artist name), typing error tolerance, multiple searching words that the app actually understands ("Mahler 2nd Kaplan" actually list the two recordings I am searching by that conductor... yes, Tidal can be used for classical music also, can you believe it?); record and tune by tune information about players, recording dates, etc. Summing up: a real relational database working behind the scenes, the one that Apple has been so lazy as to implement after all these years, instead of easy solution of using the very basic album metadata...  
      ...Tidal's catalog is as large or bigger than Music ... Tidal, but not Apple, is fully consistent in its IOS or MacOS versions (but not, and by a long shot, the very Apple that produces both OS...).  Not to talk about streaming quality, losses and better (MQA). Then you ask: why a tiny company like Tidal can do it, and the largest corporation of the world can't? Why does Apple worries about hires display, hires video content, etc., but can not stream hires audio, that would demand a tiny fraction of bandwidth compared? ... So, right, currently every single product or service of Apple related with music is basically the verge of being trash!

    ....    I am so, so fed up with Apple and the unbelievably stupid flaws in almost every product I'm still using, after more than 30yrs of only Apple products...
    mobirdCarnage
  • Reply 17 of 32
    mobirdmobird Posts: 273member
    mieswall said:
    Yet more unwanted features in Music, while not fixing its nightmarish interface or the hundreds of flaws, some of them just unbelievable. After ever a decade paying for iTunes Match or Music, I finally moved to Tidal. Within hours I was wondering why I was so stubborn that I didn't that before. Every single aspect if way better. To start with, you can - yes, really-, *search* for content, with pre-emptive typing (almost never you need to type the whole artist name), typing error tolerance, multiple searching words that the app actually understands ("Mahler 2nd Kaplan" actually list the two recordings I am searching by that conductor... yes, Tidal can be used for classical music also, can you believe it?); record and tune by tune information about players, recording dates, etc. Summing up: a real relational database working behind the scenes, the one that Apple has been so lazy as to implement after all these years, instead of easy solution of using the very basic album metadata...  
      ...Tidal's catalog is as large or bigger than Music ... Tidal, but not Apple, is fully consistent in its IOS or MacOS versions (but not, and by a long shot, the very Apple that produces both OS...).  Not to talk about streaming quality, losses and better (MQA). Then you ask: why a tiny company like Tidal can do it, and the largest corporation of the world can't? Why does Apple worries about hires display, hires video content, etc., but can not stream hires audio, that would demand a tiny fraction of bandwidth compared? ... So, right, currently every single product or service of Apple related with music is basically the verge of being trash!

    ....    I am so, so fed up with Apple and the unbelievably stupid flaws in almost every product I'm still using, after more than 30yrs of only Apple products...
    Exactly on the mark!

    Here you go lkrupp, you can start with reading this post as it relates to "features and capabilities" that are lacking in Music.
    Heaven forbid any negative comments are directed at lkrupp's Altar of Apple.
    edited September 5
  • Reply 18 of 32
    croprcropr Posts: 961member
    greg uvan said:
    I was actually thinking the same thing. Maybe they'll never update iTunes/Apple Music for Windows. Maybe this is it. I never imagined they'd do this, and I don't know why I'd use it rather than the new macOS Apple Music app. But, for other platforms? Even Linux users might be able to use this.
    I use Linux at work (Manjaro Linux, an Arch-based system); and it does not work yet using Firefox nor Chromium. It is complaining about not being able to install my Apple ID. Which is more than likely some sort of permission problem, or Apple just doesn't know how to deal with Arch yet.
    I'll use Ubuntu and it worked
  • Reply 19 of 32
    mieswall said:
    Yet more unwanted features in Music, while not fixing its nightmarish interface or the hundreds of flaws, some of them just unbelievable. After ever a decade paying for iTunes Match or Music, I finally moved to Tidal. Within hours I was wondering why I was so stubborn that I didn't that before. Every single aspect if way better. To start with, you can - yes, really-, *search* for content, with pre-emptive typing (almost never you need to type the whole artist name), typing error tolerance, multiple searching words that the app actually understands ("Mahler 2nd Kaplan" actually list the two recordings I am searching by that conductor... yes, Tidal can be used for classical music also, can you believe it?); record and tune by tune information about players, recording dates, etc. Summing up: a real relational database working behind the scenes, the one that Apple has been so lazy as to implement after all these years, instead of easy solution of using the very basic album metadata...  
      ...Tidal's catalog is as large or bigger than Music ... Tidal, but not Apple, is fully consistent in its IOS or MacOS versions (but not, and by a long shot, the very Apple that produces both OS...).  Not to talk about streaming quality, losses and better (MQA). Then you ask: why a tiny company like Tidal can do it, and the largest corporation of the world can't? Why does Apple worries about hires display, hires video content, etc., but can not stream hires audio, that would demand a tiny fraction of bandwidth compared? ... So, right, currently every single product or service of Apple related with music is basically the verge of being trash!

    ....    I am so, so fed up with Apple and the unbelievably stupid flaws in almost every product I'm still using, after more than 30yrs of only Apple products...
    Thanks for this I def agree on some points with the AM app.. I also see you can export AM playlists to Tidal as well if I wanted to make the jump. I am a iTunes Match user as well and like having everything in one App. I like the Idea of the Hi Res Audio but that is also 2x the price of an AM subscription for both single and family plans.  That is quite a jump in price. 

    So yes have a compelling argument.. the Hi Res/Lossless Audio is very appealing along with a better UI, but not at nearly $30.00 USD for a family plan.

    Family HiFi - $29.99 USD a month including up to 5 additional family members totaling 6 on the account. Lossless High Fidelity sound quality, high definition music videos, expertly curated editorial (prices vary depending on geography and local currency)

    Lower Res prices are the same as AM and Spotify... so is the search and UI that good that it's worth a one to one switch no better quality in Audio?

  • Reply 20 of 32
    This maybe off topic but in iOS 13 are we getting back internet radio stations in the music app? ‘Cause that’s the main thing I miss about the old interface. The option to go by region, countries what have you. They had perhaps 1000s of internet stations. I tried looking for apps that replace the old radio offerings but nothing comes close to the region I want which is Caribbean in particular Lesser Antilles. The old interface still exists I think on the Apple TV 3rd gen. 
Sign In or Register to comment.