SCAB!!! just kidding... well outside of the User Interface, the services (content) will be pretty much the same. I mean
how different can you get outside of music artist exclusives, etc.
The interface makes all the difference in the world. Unfortunately, when it comes to their current Music app, Apple's UI is by far the worst of the bunch right now. Compared to Beats, Spotify, and Rdio, the Apple Music app is an embarrassment in usability.
Haha! Correct. The content will be about the same with most services. My requirements are: Able to use it on what ever platform I want (iOS/Android), have a web based interface that I don't have to download a program to run it, and a good enough UI. The first two are a must.
So for me, right now I use Google Play Music. I got in early when it started so I only pay $7.99 a month. I logged into my girlfriends iPhone and she can listen to it as well. No ads ever, unlimited skips, any song/album at any time, YouTube videos built in, web interface, plays on my iPhone 6 Plus and Note 4 and iPad Air 2, or any one of the many devices I have which also includes my Chromecast, ATV, Roku. For me it's perfect right now.
For me requirements include
A vast selection of music that includes as close to every version of every song as possible
The ability to search, browse, and sort music any way I want (Apple's Music app gets an - on this.)
Music categorized by specific genres like "house", "EDM", and "techno", rather than lumped together under overly broad and generic ones like "pop" or "rock".
A user interface that lets me quickly toggle between the currently playing song and the screen from which I accessed it.
A user interface that lets me easily scrub to any point in a song without having to fiddle with tiny, hard to see controls (Another F on this one.)
A seamless and effortless way to control which songs are saved locally on each device.
A human-curated system to help me discover NEW music based on my tastes and not some record company's hit list.
Why all the mystery surrounding the name of the competitor?
It's not meant as a mystery. It wasn't pertinent so I didn't see a need to mention it. It was simply used to point out there's no obvious roadblock to a wider roll-out of Apple's iRadio if that's what they wanted to do, counter to what the OP had said. FWIW it's Google's music subscription but others too offer subscriptions in far more countries than Apple's iRadio does.
It's not meant as a mystery. It wasn't pertinent so I didn't see a need to mention it. It was simply used to point out there's no obvious roadblock to a wider roll-out of Apple's iRadio if that's what they wanted to do, counter to what the OP had said. FWIW it's Google's music subscription but others too offer subscriptions in far more countries than Apple's iRadio does.
I think it's relevant because the service in question could be seriously lacking in key features or based on a business model that some prospective customers might find objectionable.
I think it's relevant because the service in question could be seriously lacking in key features or based on a business model that some prospective customers might find objectionable.
?? What would that have to do with Apple's failure to roll-out to more countries? Nothing AFAIK
I think it's relevant because the service in question could be seriously lacking in key features or based on a business model that some prospective customers might find objectionable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
?? What would that have to do with Apple's failure to roll-out to more countries? Nothing AFAIK
For example a record label might be more accommodating to a licensee who's willing to share customer data.
For example a record label might be more accommodating to a licensee who's willing to share customer data.
Oh, so by that reasoning Apple is willing to share data to get a US license and an Australian license but draws the line at other overseas licenses?? Strange logic.
Apple recently noted it was willing to share more data with partners to get them to buy into working with Apple. So what? If they wanted to roll out to more countries they could unless there's something you know of preventing it that doesn't seem to prevent other streaming services from doing so.
Oh, so by that reasoning Apple is willing to share data to get a US license and an Australian license but draws the line at other overseas licenses?? Strange logic.
Apple recently noted it was willing to share more data with partners to get them to buy into working with Apple. So what? If they wanted to roll out to more countries they could unless there's something you know of preventing it that doesn't seem to prevent other streaming services from doing so.
Non-Sequitur. Your first sentence is illogical since it presumes that because data sharing might grease the wheels for licensing deals for some companies in some countries then it must also have been pre-condition for Apple licensing ideals in the US and Australia.
Apple has a pretty solid track record of protecting their customers' personal data and avoiding business models based on the selling or sharing of said data. This has been clearly demonstrated, among other places, in their implementation of Apple Pay, which for the first time allows customers to make secure and convenient credit card payments without actually giving the merchant their credit card number or any unique identifier with which they may be tracked.
The only noteworthy news item I'm aware of concerning Apple and data sharing is their rumored willingness to share their users' TV viewing habits with the TV networks. Assuming this is true, it causes no harm to Apple's customers because the cable companies have already been collecting this data all along, and I can't think of a less ethical or scrupulous industry than big cable. The twist is that the cable companies have always refused to share this information with the TV networks, so the only thing new would be Apple sharing this information with the companies who actually produce the TV content, further weakening their dependency on the cable companies. I see that as a win-win-win for Apple, TV networks, and Apple's customers and a big loss for cable companies. Bring it on.
Another reason why Apple has struggled to secure international licensing is the music industry's fear of letting Apple gain too much control considering what happened to their industry after Apple introduced iTunes: "the music companies lost much of their clout and reach." So this sense of paranoia drives them to spread out deals to avoid ceding more control to Apple.
Apple has a pretty solid track record of protecting their customers' personal data and avoiding business models based on the selling or sharing of said data. This has been clearly demonstrated, among other places, in their implementation of Apple Pay, which for the first time allows customers to make secure and convenient credit card payments without actually giving the merchant their credit card number or any unique identifier with which they may be tracked.
The only noteworthy news item I'm aware of concerning Apple and data sharing is their rumored willingness to share their users' TV viewing habits with the TV networks. Assuming this is true, it causes no harm to Apple's customers because the cable companies have already been collecting this data all along, and I can't think of a less ethical or scrupulous industry than big cable. The twist is that the cable companies have always refused to share this information with the TV networks, so the only thing new would be Apple sharing this information with the companies who actually produce the TV content, further weakening their dependency on the cable companies. I see that as a win-win-win for Apple, TV networks, and Apple's customers and a big loss for cable companies. Bring it on.
Another reason why Apple has struggled to secure international licensing is the music industry's fear of letting Apple gain too much control considering what happened to their industry after Apple introduced iTunes: "the music companies lost much of their clout and reach." So this sense of paranoia drives them to spread out deals to avoid ceding more control to Apple.
Google has an excellent track record of protecting customer's personal data too. Again so what? In the past few months Apple has moved closer to Google's ad model instead of away from it while protecting individual users data just as Google does. Not just with TV viewing either:
"Brands buying on iTunes Radio inventory can also tap Customer Match, Apple's newly beefed up ad-targeting product. It offers advertisers custom segmenting of Apple's users, based on its IDFA mobile identifier, the company's version of a cookie. For instance, if a financial services or mobile gaming app advertiser wanted to hit particular iTunes Radio listeners, they could do so through Workbench. Earlier, iAd buyers had to manually configure customer matching -- available through IDFA or slicing of the application program interface -- to achieve similar targeting with iAd. Now that's automated." http://adage.com/article/digital/apple-opens-itunes-radio-automated-buying-iad/297663/
and... "Apple on Friday announced a partnership with AdRoll, a major retargeting platform, to give AdRoll clients access to iAd inventory. AdRoll will be integrated into Apple’s iAd Workbench API 2.0 and claims to be “one of the first” to do so.
The partnership comes just days after Apple announced another programmatic-themed partnership with ad exchange Rubicon Project.
Similar to the partnership Apple struck with Rubicon, AdRoll clients will be able to use Apple’s first-party customer data sets from iTunes and the App Store to target consumers across iOS devices and within apps. Apple claims there are over 400 targeting options available on its iAd platform, which it says is used by over 250,000 mobile developers.
Listening to some statements from Mr Cook he would like to leave the impression that Apple doesn't monetize their users while Google does. He doesn't go so far as to claim it as a fact tho does he? In actuality their two privacy policies differ very little, both restricting the sharing of identifiable user info to the same uses and protections." http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/238734/apple-continues-iad-renovations-partners-with-adr.html
The two are becoming more alike in some ways than you probably realize, and neither has the bright white or pitch black hat you imagine them to IMHO.
In any event the tread is dragging off-topic for the exact reason I avoided mentioning the "mystery competitor" in the first place. In your case it becomes a distraction from the thread topic, serving no particular purpose other than an opportunity to change the subject using a very long stretch. Get it now why I didn't specify who it was in the first place? It wasn't pertinent.
Google has an excellent track record of protecting customer's personal data too. Again so what? In the past few months Apple has moved closer to Google's ad model instead of away from it while protecting individual users data just as Google does.
The key difference is that in the examples you cited, Apple never shares personally identifiable user info, while companies like Google and Facebook have been repeatedly caught doing exactly that. Also there's a big difference between sharing data that was never private in the first place - TV viewing habits - versus sharing things like what you were searching for and reading on the internet and storing this information indefinitely.
Look, it's clear from your comment history that you have a very pro-corporate, pro-status-quo world view that is consistently at odds with the needs and wants of regular people and consumers. You have little appreciation for Apple's products and company philosophy beyond perhaps a callous admiration for how profitable they are. You, like many other business school types, find it troubling and disconcerting that a company like Apple can be so successful, for so long, while playing by a different rule book that casts aside the cookie cutter, pencil pusher business strategies that you're more accustomed to.
So on that note let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
The key difference is that in the examples you cited, Apple never shares personally identifiable user info, while companies like Google and Facebook have been repeatedly caught doing exactly that.
Bull. Do you have a few links to the facts about sharing with outside parties of identifiable user data that Google has supposedly been caught doing on multiple occasions? :no:
There is no real difference in the way identifiable data is handled at Google or Apple. Google never shares personally identifiable data either except under the same general strict rules as Apple does. In most cases that would either be with partners that are performing a service on behalf of them (and with your explicit consent to do so) or in order to comply with legal obligations. Read the two privacy policies and compare them for yourself.
Best left at that as the thread is in danger of veering even further off-topic. If you wish to continue the discussion start a new thread on the subject and I'll be happy to respond if I have something pertinent to add.
Shared identifiable info? Hardly anymore than Apple shared customers personally identifiable pictures. So ya got nuthin. As I suggested if you wish to continue start a new thread. I'm in.
Shared identifiable info? Hardly anymore than Apple shared customers personally identifiable pictures. So ya got nuthin.
More FUD from the Apple haters. You're alluding to "the fappening" which resulted from social engineering attacks on some user accounts with weak passwords and/or security questions. No matter how secure a system, if your password is "1234" there's not much anyone can do to help you.
"Celebrities’ iCloud accounts were compromised when hackers correctly answered security questions to obtain their passwords, or when they were victimized by a phishing scam to obtain user IDs and passwords. None of the Apple IDs and passwords leaked from the company’s servers."
Comments
SCAB!!! just kidding... well outside of the User Interface, the services (content) will be pretty much the same. I mean
how different can you get outside of music artist exclusives, etc.
The interface makes all the difference in the world. Unfortunately, when it comes to their current Music app, Apple's UI is by far the worst of the bunch right now. Compared to Beats, Spotify, and Rdio, the Apple Music app is an embarrassment in usability.
Haha! Correct. The content will be about the same with most services. My requirements are: Able to use it on what ever platform I want (iOS/Android), have a web based interface that I don't have to download a program to run it, and a good enough UI. The first two are a must.
So for me, right now I use Google Play Music. I got in early when it started so I only pay $7.99 a month. I logged into my girlfriends iPhone and she can listen to it as well. No ads ever, unlimited skips, any song/album at any time, YouTube videos built in, web interface, plays on my iPhone 6 Plus and Note 4 and iPad Air 2, or any one of the many devices I have which also includes my Chromecast, ATV, Roku. For me it's perfect right now.
For me requirements include
You've literally just described Google Play Music. It does each one of those.
You've literally just described Google Play Music. It does each one of those.
Oops, forgot one...
In all seriousness, though, I've never used Google Play Music. Just curious, how does its interface allow you to scrub to a different spot on a track?
It's not meant as a mystery. It wasn't pertinent so I didn't see a need to mention it. It was simply used to point out there's no obvious roadblock to a wider roll-out of Apple's iRadio if that's what they wanted to do, counter to what the OP had said. FWIW it's Google's music subscription but others too offer subscriptions in far more countries than Apple's iRadio does.
I think it's relevant because the service in question could be seriously lacking in key features or based on a business model that some prospective customers might find objectionable.
I think it's relevant because the service in question could be seriously lacking in key features or based on a business model that some prospective customers might find objectionable.
?? What would that have to do with Apple's failure to roll-out to more countries? Nothing AFAIK
For example a record label might be more accommodating to a licensee who's willing to share customer data.
Apple recently noted it was willing to share more data with partners to get them to buy into working with Apple. So what? If they wanted to roll out to more countries they could unless there's something you know of preventing it that doesn't seem to prevent other streaming services from doing so.
Oh, so by that reasoning Apple is willing to share data to get a US license and an Australian license but draws the line at other overseas licenses?? Strange logic.
Apple recently noted it was willing to share more data with partners to get them to buy into working with Apple. So what? If they wanted to roll out to more countries they could unless there's something you know of preventing it that doesn't seem to prevent other streaming services from doing so.
Non-Sequitur. Your first sentence is illogical since it presumes that because data sharing might grease the wheels for licensing deals for some companies in some countries then it must also have been pre-condition for Apple licensing ideals in the US and Australia.
Apple has a pretty solid track record of protecting their customers' personal data and avoiding business models based on the selling or sharing of said data. This has been clearly demonstrated, among other places, in their implementation of Apple Pay, which for the first time allows customers to make secure and convenient credit card payments without actually giving the merchant their credit card number or any unique identifier with which they may be tracked.
The only noteworthy news item I'm aware of concerning Apple and data sharing is their rumored willingness to share their users' TV viewing habits with the TV networks. Assuming this is true, it causes no harm to Apple's customers because the cable companies have already been collecting this data all along, and I can't think of a less ethical or scrupulous industry than big cable. The twist is that the cable companies have always refused to share this information with the TV networks, so the only thing new would be Apple sharing this information with the companies who actually produce the TV content, further weakening their dependency on the cable companies. I see that as a win-win-win for Apple, TV networks, and Apple's customers and a big loss for cable companies. Bring it on.
Another reason why Apple has struggled to secure international licensing is the music industry's fear of letting Apple gain too much control considering what happened to their industry after Apple introduced iTunes: "the music companies lost much of their clout and reach." So this sense of paranoia drives them to spread out deals to avoid ceding more control to Apple.
"Brands buying on iTunes Radio inventory can also tap Customer Match, Apple's newly beefed up ad-targeting product. It offers advertisers custom segmenting of Apple's users, based on its IDFA mobile identifier, the company's version of a cookie. For instance, if a financial services or mobile gaming app advertiser wanted to hit particular iTunes Radio listeners, they could do so through Workbench. Earlier, iAd buyers had to manually configure customer matching -- available through IDFA or slicing of the application program interface -- to achieve similar targeting with iAd. Now that's automated."
http://adage.com/article/digital/apple-opens-itunes-radio-automated-buying-iad/297663/
and...
"Apple on Friday announced a partnership with AdRoll, a major retargeting platform, to give AdRoll clients access to iAd inventory. AdRoll will be integrated into Apple’s iAd Workbench API 2.0 and claims to be “one of the first” to do so.
The partnership comes just days after Apple announced another programmatic-themed partnership with ad exchange Rubicon Project.
Similar to the partnership Apple struck with Rubicon, AdRoll clients will be able to use Apple’s first-party customer data sets from iTunes and the App Store to target consumers across iOS devices and within apps. Apple claims there are over 400 targeting options available on its iAd platform, which it says is used by over 250,000 mobile developers.
Listening to some statements from Mr Cook he would like to leave the impression that Apple doesn't monetize their users while Google does. He doesn't go so far as to claim it as a fact tho does he? In actuality their two privacy policies differ very little, both restricting the sharing of identifiable user info to the same uses and protections."
http://www.mediapost.com/publications/article/238734/apple-continues-iad-renovations-partners-with-adr.html
The two are becoming more alike in some ways than you probably realize, and neither has the bright white or pitch black hat you imagine them to IMHO.
In any event the tread is dragging off-topic for the exact reason I avoided mentioning the "mystery competitor" in the first place. In your case it becomes a distraction from the thread topic, serving no particular purpose other than an opportunity to change the subject using a very long stretch. Get it now why I didn't specify who it was in the first place? It wasn't pertinent.
Google has an excellent track record of protecting customer's personal data too. Again so what? In the past few months Apple has moved closer to Google's ad model instead of away from it while protecting individual users data just as Google does.
The key difference is that in the examples you cited, Apple never shares personally identifiable user info, while companies like Google and Facebook have been repeatedly caught doing exactly that. Also there's a big difference between sharing data that was never private in the first place - TV viewing habits - versus sharing things like what you were searching for and reading on the internet and storing this information indefinitely.
Look, it's clear from your comment history that you have a very pro-corporate, pro-status-quo world view that is consistently at odds with the needs and wants of regular people and consumers. You have little appreciation for Apple's products and company philosophy beyond perhaps a callous admiration for how profitable they are. You, like many other business school types, find it troubling and disconcerting that a company like Apple can be so successful, for so long, while playing by a different rule book that casts aside the cookie cutter, pencil pusher business strategies that you're more accustomed to.
So on that note let's agree to disagree and leave it at that.
There is no real difference in the way identifiable data is handled at Google or Apple. Google never shares personally identifiable data either except under the same general strict rules as Apple does. In most cases that would either be with partners that are performing a service on behalf of them (and with your explicit consent to do so) or in order to comply with legal obligations. Read the two privacy policies and compare them for yourself.
Best left at that as the thread is in danger of veering even further off-topic. If you wish to continue the discussion start a new thread on the subject and I'll be happy to respond if I have something pertinent to add.
Bull. Do you have a few links to the facts about sharing with outside parties of identifiable user data
Shared identifiable info? Hardly anymore than Apple shared customers personally identifiable pictures. So ya got nuthin. As I suggested if you wish to continue start a new thread. I'm in.
Shared identifiable info? Hardly anymore than Apple shared customers personally identifiable pictures. So ya got nuthin.
More FUD from the Apple haters. You're alluding to "the fappening" which resulted from social engineering attacks on some user accounts with weak passwords and/or security questions. No matter how secure a system, if your password is "1234" there's not much anyone can do to help you.
"Celebrities’ iCloud accounts were compromised when hackers correctly answered security questions to obtain their passwords, or when they were victimized by a phishing scam to obtain user IDs and passwords. None of the Apple IDs and passwords leaked from the company’s servers."