Apple Music streams songs on-demand, features 24/7 'Beats 1' station, on iOS & Android for $10/month

15681011

Comments

  • Reply 141 of 220
    mscohenmscohen Posts: 23member
    Hmm: I guess that I probably won't be renewing my iCloud music subscription.
  • Reply 142 of 220
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    I won't be signing up at launch. I'll wait until there's Sonos support. That's Spotify's key selling feature for me - ubiquity. It's supported by a very wide range of devices.

  • Reply 143 of 220
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,279member
    Go back to Arstechnica and stroke it with all the myopia that doesn't realize Spotify, Pandora and Tidal are all screwed.

    No they are not. Apple Music doesn't provide any reason to switch if you're already paying for Spotify or Google Play Music. Several people on here have already stated they are not going to switch. I know I'm not switching as I only pay $8/m for Google Play Music with a no ads YouTube videos included.
  • Reply 144 of 220
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    According to Bloomberg The Beatles catalog will not be part of Apple's streaming service. Now we know why Eddy didn't make a big deal about streaming anything available on iTunes because that's clearly not the case.

    http://www.theverge.com/2015/6/8/8745963/the-beatles-apple-music
  • Reply 145 of 220
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    Cue's presentation was extremely unfocused compare to the rest of the demos. Everything else was sharp, he was playing music.

    I think it will do well. The Siri integration looks cool, particularly playing songs or charts from a different era.
  • Reply 146 of 220
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,257member
    Iovine is a very irritating presenter. STOP SHOUTING.

    Eddy Cue was a relief, despite the loudness of his shirt.
  • Reply 147 of 220
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,279member
    Can’t wait to hear people shouting Beats One Off into their Apple Watch on the train soon.
  • Reply 148 of 220
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SirLance99 View Post



    The fact that Drake is the only non old white person at this Apple Event is really showing how out of touch Apple can be with non-dad america.?

     

    Tim Cook has made mention of their lack of diversity and how that's their fault. 

    However, they do have some of the best most talented executive team out there. 

    I get the impression they take the hiring process for the executive team very, very seriously and it's not just about optics. 

    Hiring a bunch of young people to run a very successful business just because it would help their image isn't the answer. 

    I'm hoping they have a more diverse team that they're grooming to take over when some of the existing team retires. 

     

    Regarding Drake, wow, he was terrible on stage.  I was really surprised. 

    The whole music portion of the keynote seemed off.  Didn't seem like it was rehearsed. 

    Jimmy Iovine seemed off too.  I don't really like his speaking style. 

    Eddy Cue is probably great at his job, but he's just the wrong image for the launch of something like Apple Music. 

     

    I'm surprised they didn't let some of their inhouse talent run with this - Trent Reznor, Dre and DJ Zane Lowe. 

  • Reply 149 of 220
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    I hope the ad-free stations are also self-promotion-free. I have had SiriusXM free trials a few times, in newly purchased cars, and the interruptions to the music for promotions of other SiriusXM channels are every bit as annoying as any other commercial. I can really do without any narcissistic blathering from DJs also. Just play a bunch of good music, like my iPod on shuffle.
  • Reply 150 of 220
    jakebjakeb Posts: 559member

    Luckily not too many normal people will learn about Apple Music by watching that keynote because damn. The promo site though: http://www.apple.com/music/?itscg=1001&at=1000lGN&ct=US-google&cid=wwa-us-kwg-music



    They did a great job with that. 

  • Reply 151 of 220
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

     

     

    For now I'll stick with free Pandora & free Spotify. Not high-bit rate, but good enough for earbuds or in the truck. If I really want a high quality copy I'll buy the CD.

     

    I'm just not into music as an entire lifestyle. Maybe I need to be a 14 year-old.


     

    I have a free Spotify account too and no way I will stick with that. The sound is too awful. Even though we don't know about the sound quality of Apple Music I'll bet it the same with iTunes purchase (better than iTunes Radio). That's good enough.

    And no way I'll pay for that convoluted service. I got a headache just browsing the app.

     

    Can't hardly wait to try Apple Music. They should release it already!

     

    Can't hardly wait to try SIRI's "play top 20 rock songs from 1975"!

  • Reply 152 of 220
    razorpitrazorpit Posts: 1,796member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Boltsfan17 View Post

     

    There are some good stations on Sirius/XM radio. The big issue for me is the audio quality is so terrible. I still have a year to go on my free trial, but I don't think I will keep it. 




    Agreed.  It's so hissy I get a damn headache if I listen to it too long.  I don't understand how people can praise the "cd quality" sound.  A decent FM signal beats Sirius/XM hands down.

  • Reply 153 of 220
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by xSerenityx View Post

     

    I was pleasantly surprised by this. I thought I was going to be ho-hum, because I'm pretty happy with Spotify... but some of the features look intriguing, and it wouldn't cost me more than it does now.

     

    I have to see if the library is as deep as Spotify's... I listen to a crapload of obscure stuff, and if I can't find it... :/

     

    I must be the only one actually jazzed about the global radio station.




    No, you're not. I'm all for quality DJ stuffs too.

  • Reply 154 of 220
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member

    After rewatching the Keynote I'm having a hard time understanding anyone who is a paid member of Spotify to not switch. What Spotify have that Apple Music doesn't? (apart from sentimental reason)

     

    Apple Music will launch in more countries.

    The price will be the same for a single person and even cheaper for family tier.

    Larger library.

    Better integration with the system and SIRI.

    Can play offline too.

    Free 3 months (you'll save $30)

    It's a no brainer for Apple Watch owner.

     

    The only group I can understand may not be too thrilled about switching will be the one who have SONOS system, which is not working *now*. Other than that, why not switch?

  • Reply 155 of 220
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jasenj1 View Post

     

    I'd like to see high-bit rate, too.

     

    For now I'll stick with free Pandora & free Spotify. Not high-bit rate, but good enough for earbuds or in the truck. If I really want a high quality copy I'll buy the CD.


     

    You want high-bit rate on Apple Music... then you don't need high-bit rate on Pandora or Spotify... but if you did want high-bit rate you'll buy the CD. So, it's okay for others to not offer high-bit rate cuz it's good enough as is, but if Apple doesn't offer it then you want it and half-complain they don't have it?!

  • Reply 156 of 220
    What about the users who pay for an iTunes match account?
  • Reply 157 of 220
    nairbnairb Posts: 253member

    I think that the Sydney Morning Herald got it right when they said

     

    "With more than two dozen music streaming services available in Australia already, Apple is muscling in on a crowded market. Its claim that its service is "revolutionary" because it "brings the best features" already out there, is confusing at best."

     

    http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/apple-music-v-spotify-pandora-google-play-and-rdio-20150609-ghjjef

     

    But this is still the key point from the article

     

    ' "They have some strange connection with consumers which gives them an elevated chance of success," IBRS analyst Guy Cranswick said.'

  • Reply 158 of 220
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,685member
    nairb wrote: »
    I think that the Sydney Morning Herald got it right when they said

    "With more than two dozen music streaming services available in Australia already, Apple is muscling in on a crowded market. Its claim that its service is "revolutionary" because it "brings the best features" already out there, is confusing at best."

    http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/apple-music-v-spotify-pandora-google-play-and-rdio-20150609-ghjjef

    But this is still the key point from the article

    ' "They have some strange connection with consumers which gives them an elevated chance of success," IBRS analyst Guy Cranswick said.'

    Maybe people like quality. Nothing strange about that.

    It's fairly simple to explain Apples potential, to use spotify you have to actively search for it. To use a free trial of the music streamlining on iOS you just have to launch Music and then you get it.
  • Reply 159 of 220

    This won't be the case for Android users.  They will have to seek it out.  Unless Apple strikes deals with HTC and others to preinstall the application. 

  • Reply 160 of 220
    fjrestofjresto Posts: 6member

    This is not true. For $10 Tidal provides you with the same sound quality as Spotify and Pandora, etc. You would have to pay $20 with Tidal to get the up'd quality. Check out their membership tiers. 

     

    Apple Music has the highest sound quality at the $10 price level. They use a 256bit format. They've been using that format for about 5 years when they up'd it from 128bit. 

     

    But to be honest, it doesnt matter on the quality. Most people cannot tell the difference in quality. Its like 720p and 1080p for TV. 

Sign In or Register to comment.