Yeah there is the old saying that the second mouse gets the cheese. Sorry for the temp hyjack, but what is the history with the naming of the "i-this?" I suppose that the "i" suggests individual or something, but on the other hand it seems self-centered and narcissistic in which case I'm trading everything from a washer and dryer to TVs to a new fridge to phones as that suits me to a t or should I say "i."
Why should Apple bother with it's own streaming music. Currently there are multiple streaming services on the appstore that lead or can lead directly to iTunes. There is the well reported Pandora and Spotify, but also iRadio, TuneIn radio and many others. Let these companies and Google duke it out while paying royalties to the record companies. People still want to own their own music, and when they hear a song they like, Apple should make arrangements to have an iTunes link available so that purchases can be made. Pandora and TuneIn Radio have such a link, but I noted iRadio does not. However I have been able to play iRadio while turning on Shazam and identifying the name of the song. Apple should put music identification software into iTunes, and make financial arrangements with the various streaming music companies rather then trying to compete with them.
Because eventually people will just stream music rather than buy it.
I highly doubt that. It's not just Google they're up against.
I think it's a highly plausible scenario, even though we will never know for certain. History has shown so far that consumers are not really interested in mobile OS's that are "different" from the dominant iOS and the iOS copy, Android. Without the existence of the copy, most users would probably save up their money and go for iOS.
If not for the rise of Android as a copy-cat OS, Apple would be enjoying more of a monopoly situation right now and the media companies would have had to play ball. An unfortunate negative result of this would be that no doubt all the stories in the press would be angsty hand-wringing over whether Apple's dominance constitutes a "monopoly." Back on the plus side however, it might have also had the effect of forcing Apple to offer users more choice since they would be the only game in town.
Apple needs to loosen up and be first to market - especially after such a long time of not really bringing anything new to their game. Holding out for specific terms is only going to make Apple look like it's late to the party. The only reason Apple is successful with iPad and iPhone is because it was the first one out the gate on those types of products and it took years for others to catch up. Now Apple is trying to catch up to other streaming services, but won't bend on terms. Apple, you aren't as convincing as you used to be. I wonder why?
You are so wrong about everything. Being first doesn't guarantee you anything. Apple was not the first to market mp3 players (iPod), tablets (iPad) or smartphones (iPhone) but revolutionized those markets when they did enter those markets. It is not about being first, it is all about getting it right.
Had Google not been so quick to copy the iPhone's OS, and Apple had a couple more years of near monopoly on media consumption, they could have dragged the rest of the entertainment industry kicking and screaming into the 21st century and gotten everyone cheaper and multi-device access to music, movies, TV shows, etc. Instead, we have to pretend that nothing has changed and everyone wants to go to theaters and listen to top 40 radio to get their fix. Thanks Google for making capitalism work against the consumer.
If you knew anything about economics, you would know that a monopoly never leads to better choices for consumers. The best possible case is that several services compete for consumer dollars because that drives innovation.
Furthermore, Google's "copy" of iOS has led to Apple adding several features to its software and devices, and vice-versa. For example, you now have a notification center, native integration of Facebook and Twitter, a larger screen, automated replies while dismissing a call, synchronized browser tabs across devices, and turn-by-turn navigation. Thanks to iOS, Android has drag and drop folder creation, a smoother UI, a natural language assistant, and group messaging. None of these features are features that would never have happened without competition, but they almost certainly happened earlier because of it.
I think it's a highly plausible scenario, even though we will never know for certain. History has shown so far that consumers are not really interested in mobile OS's that are "different" from the dominant iOS and the iOS copy, Android. Without the existence of the copy, most users would probably save up their money and go for iOS.
If not for the rise of Android as a copy-cat OS, Apple would be enjoying more of a monopoly situation right now and the media companies would have had to play ball. An unfortunate negative result of this would be that no doubt all the stories in the press would be angsty hand-wringing over whether Apple's dominance constitutes a "monopoly." Back on the plus side however, it might have also had the effect of forcing Apple to offer users more choice since they would be the only game in town.
I can watch Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, VUDU, etc on my DVD player, on my Roku, and built into my Panasonic TV, I need neither iOS nor Android. I can read ebooks purchased from Amazon and Barnes and Noble on my computer, my smartphone and tablet regardless of platform. I'll give you music but Apple has never had the chance to monopolize other media forms.
If you knew anything about economics, you would know that a monopoly never leads to better choices for consumers. The best possible case is that several services compete for consumer dollars because that drives innovation.
Furthermore, Google's "copy" of iOS has led to Apple adding several features to its software and devices, and vice-versa. For example, you now have a notification center, native integration of Facebook and Twitter, a larger screen, automated replies while dismissing a call, synchronized browser tabs across devices, and turn-by-turn navigation. Thanks to iOS, Android has drag and drop folder creation, a smoother UI, a natural language assistant, and group messaging. None of these features are features that would never have happened without competition, but they almost certainly happened earlier because of it.
In fact, what you just said, is one of the arguments against the (government-granted) monopoly on intellectual property.
I can watch Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, VUDU, etc on my DVD player, on my Roku, and built into my Panasonic TV, I need neither iOS nor Android.
Yeah, my TV has all that stuff built-in too. Made me wonder what real value Roku or AppleTV would bring me. I think Apple's on an uphill battle here. Maybe if the build the whole TV, and it's not massively overpriced and it provides some compelling feature (ease of use might be nice), I'd buy that. But, for me, right now, AppleTV is a non-starter.
Ad-supported music streaming by Apple? Not so keen on that. Unless you have the choice of free streaming with ads or a paid ad-free subscription instead, then its ok.
Actually that's the rumored way Apple's streaming "radio" service will work. Targeted ads with the revenue split between the content owner and Apple. Google's service on the other hand appears to be paid rather than ad-supported. Dunno for sure yet tho.
EDIT: According to several different news articles, Google will not have a free ad-supported version of it's All-Access music streaming service. If the rumor of Apple's being ad-supported turns out to be true that would be a big 'ol role-switch.
Apple data-mining to support streaming while Google sells it's music service? Nah. . .
Every time someone tries to block Apple, they find a way around them. In the end, Apple makes more money, and the attempted blocker makes less. Even when Apple was blocked from using money, brought back from overseas, to to pay for dividends and stock buyback, they found an end around.
Yeah there is the old saying that the second mouse gets the cheese. Sorry for the temp hyjack, but what is the history with the naming of the "i-this?" I suppose that the "i" suggests individual or something, but on the other hand it seems self-centered and narcissistic in which case I'm trading everything from a washer and dryer to TVs to a new fridge to phones as that suits me to a t or should I say "i."
In the original iMac, the "I" stood for Internet. It just stuck with the other products to make it consistent and for customers to know only Apple makes "iDevices".
Seconded. If you look at his posting history, aside from one time where he takes a homophobe to task, every single post is a one sentence, negative troll/insult "f*ck Apple" kind of remark.
He contributes nothing but hate.
He is just jealous of their success or he is trying to justify his purchase of non-Apple hardware to himself. Apple forums are infested with these types of people. They hate Apple but can't help talking about them.
According to cnet, Apple wants to allow users to be able to skip a song after they've partially played it and Sony is balking at that idea. I guess Pandora offers 12 skips but they pay the record companies for every song skipped. Maybe Apple will decide to go the Spotify route although I'm sure they're thinking about what the consequences would be for iTunes. Do they have enough of an advantage content wise that they could charge more than Spotify, Rdo or Google does?
Recently I've been exploring Spotify and I like the ability to listen to a full album/song before purchasing it, but I do want to purchase it. I can't see myself paying a monthly fee to stream music. I guess it could happen, but I'd much rather pay once for a song/album and have it "forever." So coming from my perspective, an ad supported music streaming service from Apple would be great. I'd stream very infrequently but it will prove very helpful in making purchasing decisions.
If the service requires a monthly fee, I'll never use it. Why bother when I can just hop on over to Spotify (for free) to make my buying decisions?
Comments
Yeah there is the old saying that the second mouse gets the cheese. Sorry for the temp hyjack, but what is the history with the naming of the "i-this?" I suppose that the "i" suggests individual or something, but on the other hand it seems self-centered and narcissistic in which case I'm trading everything from a washer and dryer to TVs to a new fridge to phones as that suits me to a t or should I say "i."
Because eventually people will just stream music rather than buy it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I highly doubt that. It's not just Google they're up against.
I think it's a highly plausible scenario, even though we will never know for certain. History has shown so far that consumers are not really interested in mobile OS's that are "different" from the dominant iOS and the iOS copy, Android. Without the existence of the copy, most users would probably save up their money and go for iOS.
If not for the rise of Android as a copy-cat OS, Apple would be enjoying more of a monopoly situation right now and the media companies would have had to play ball. An unfortunate negative result of this would be that no doubt all the stories in the press would be angsty hand-wringing over whether Apple's dominance constitutes a "monopoly." Back on the plus side however, it might have also had the effect of forcing Apple to offer users more choice since they would be the only game in town.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZREOSpecialist
Apple needs to loosen up and be first to market - especially after such a long time of not really bringing anything new to their game. Holding out for specific terms is only going to make Apple look like it's late to the party. The only reason Apple is successful with iPad and iPhone is because it was the first one out the gate on those types of products and it took years for others to catch up. Now Apple is trying to catch up to other streaming services, but won't bend on terms. Apple, you aren't as convincing as you used to be. I wonder why?
You are so wrong about everything. Being first doesn't guarantee you anything. Apple was not the first to market mp3 players (iPod), tablets (iPad) or smartphones (iPhone) but revolutionized those markets when they did enter those markets. It is not about being first, it is all about getting it right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Had Google not been so quick to copy the iPhone's OS, and Apple had a couple more years of near monopoly on media consumption, they could have dragged the rest of the entertainment industry kicking and screaming into the 21st century and gotten everyone cheaper and multi-device access to music, movies, TV shows, etc. Instead, we have to pretend that nothing has changed and everyone wants to go to theaters and listen to top 40 radio to get their fix. Thanks Google for making capitalism work against the consumer.
If you knew anything about economics, you would know that a monopoly never leads to better choices for consumers. The best possible case is that several services compete for consumer dollars because that drives innovation.
Furthermore, Google's "copy" of iOS has led to Apple adding several features to its software and devices, and vice-versa. For example, you now have a notification center, native integration of Facebook and Twitter, a larger screen, automated replies while dismissing a call, synchronized browser tabs across devices, and turn-by-turn navigation. Thanks to iOS, Android has drag and drop folder creation, a smoother UI, a natural language assistant, and group messaging. None of these features are features that would never have happened without competition, but they almost certainly happened earlier because of it.
I can watch Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, VUDU, etc on my DVD player, on my Roku, and built into my Panasonic TV, I need neither iOS nor Android. I can read ebooks purchased from Amazon and Barnes and Noble on my computer, my smartphone and tablet regardless of platform. I'll give you music but Apple has never had the chance to monopolize other media forms.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wakefinance
If you knew anything about economics, you would know that a monopoly never leads to better choices for consumers. The best possible case is that several services compete for consumer dollars because that drives innovation.
Furthermore, Google's "copy" of iOS has led to Apple adding several features to its software and devices, and vice-versa. For example, you now have a notification center, native integration of Facebook and Twitter, a larger screen, automated replies while dismissing a call, synchronized browser tabs across devices, and turn-by-turn navigation. Thanks to iOS, Android has drag and drop folder creation, a smoother UI, a natural language assistant, and group messaging. None of these features are features that would never have happened without competition, but they almost certainly happened earlier because of it.
In fact, what you just said, is one of the arguments against the (government-granted) monopoly on intellectual property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
I can watch Netflix, Amazon, Hulu, VUDU, etc on my DVD player, on my Roku, and built into my Panasonic TV, I need neither iOS nor Android.
Yeah, my TV has all that stuff built-in too. Made me wonder what real value Roku or AppleTV would bring me. I think Apple's on an uphill battle here. Maybe if the build the whole TV, and it's not massively overpriced and it provides some compelling feature (ease of use might be nice), I'd buy that. But, for me, right now, AppleTV is a non-starter.
Rumored does not equal truth
In the original iMac, the "I" stood for Internet. It just stuck with the other products to make it consistent and for customers to know only Apple makes "iDevices".
He is just jealous of their success or he is trying to justify his purchase of non-Apple hardware to himself. Apple forums are infested with these types of people. They hate Apple but can't help talking about them.
Recently I've been exploring Spotify and I like the ability to listen to a full album/song before purchasing it, but I do want to purchase it. I can't see myself paying a monthly fee to stream music. I guess it could happen, but I'd much rather pay once for a song/album and have it "forever." So coming from my perspective, an ad supported music streaming service from Apple would be great. I'd stream very infrequently but it will prove very helpful in making purchasing decisions.
If the service requires a monthly fee, I'll never use it. Why bother when I can just hop on over to Spotify (for free) to make my buying decisions?
Very little point, looking at the quickly thought up name it seems clear that this 'tard has been banned for trolling before (many times).
Originally Posted by Evilution
Very little point, looking at the quickly thought up name it seems clear that this 'tard has been banned for trolling before (many times).
Him, not to my recollection, and there are always ways of preventing returners.
But it's a temporary monopoly. I fully believe someone should be able to enjoy the fruits of their labor before someone else can.