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

15678911»

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 220
    calicali Posts: 3,495member
    I was so excited the whole way through.

    Until they mentioned for android. And I'm a damn artist myself!!!! Who also dreams of managing other artists.
  • Reply 202 of 220
    webpoet73webpoet73 Posts: 112member

    What's weird is that I have 324 albums in my Amazon Prime Music collection (that does include the Autorip CDs I bought).  But I have found a number of bands that I like now that I hadn't heard before...

     

    But, I can't integrate those albums in with my iTunes library.  So, I have to use 2 separate apps.

     

    On the one hand, I pay for Amazon Prime for many reasons, so I don't feel as if I am playing for the Music.  But on the other, I hate having to use 2 apps; however, that means I'll have to pay Apple another 10 bucks/month (in addition to the iTunes Match and iCloud drive "bills")  that I am not paying to Amazon.  

     

    The desktop app (APM) crashes on my Macbook Pro so often, it's hard to use.  iTunes, for me, has been rock solid.

     

    The Beats 1 radio station does nothing for me.  As a metal fan, I doubt that genre will get any play on Beats 1.

     

    It is a dilemma, for sure.  Especially due to the fact that I like to buy my music.... Subscription service is great as long as you continue to subscribe.  My cd's will last forever and can be re-ripped if necessary.

  • Reply 203 of 220
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member

    10$/month or 120$/year + streaming costs

     

    It is a win for Apple,

    a win for the music industry, 

    and a win for the data carriers.

     

    What about us, mere mortals?

  • Reply 204 of 220
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,532member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mr O View Post

     

    10$/month or 120$/year + streaming costs

     

    It is a win for Apple,

    a win for the music industry, 

    and a win for the data carriers.

     

    What about the rest of us?


    You can:

    - Listen to the "Beats 1" radio free

    - Purchase music from iTunes (or other sources like Amazon) and own the content, for around $1 song

    - Subscribe to a somewhat different service (not personal streaming) like Pandora for $5/month

    - Join the "free" with ads services of Spotify or similar (for as long as they may have interesting content)

    - Use standard "internet radio" streaming for free, with thousands of stations to choose from

     

    Lots of choices out there, and you can do them all within the Apple ecosystem.  What specifically is your complaint?

  • Reply 205 of 220
    mercury99mercury99 Posts: 251member

    Spotify will probably match the family 6 for $14.99 offer

  • Reply 206 of 220
    mercury99mercury99 Posts: 251member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by razorpit View Post

     



    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.


    Except FM comes with tons of commercials

  • Reply 207 of 220
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by brucemc View Post

     

    You can:

    - Listen to the "Beats 1" radio free

    - Purchase music from iTunes (or other sources like Amazon) and own the content, for around $1 song

    - Subscribe to a somewhat different service (not personal streaming) like Pandora for $5/month

    - Join the "free" with ads services of Spotify or similar (for as long as they may have interesting content)

    - Use standard "internet radio" streaming for free, with thousands of stations to choose from

     

    Lots of choices out there, and you can do them all within the Apple ecosystem.  What specifically is your complaint?


     

    I recommend you reading re/code's thoughts on Apple music. (via Walt Mossberg)



    Mashable's thoughts on Apple music are a bit harsher, but they do raise some valid points.

  • Reply 208 of 220
    clayp711clayp711 Posts: 11member
    budshonda wrote: »
    What about those of us who are existing Beats Subscribers who signed up thru AT&T way back when? They failed to address what they were going to do with the current Beats Subscriber base.
    See that is the answer I'm looking for. I wouldn't be confused or concerned if I signed up directly through beats music (drop one for the other) but since it is through AT&T I do t know what will happen.
  • Reply 209 of 220
    mrboba1mrboba1 Posts: 274member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by clayp711 View Post





    See that is the answer I'm looking for. I wouldn't be confused or concerned if I signed up directly through beats music (drop one for the other) but since it is through AT&T I do t know what will happen.



    Again, it is all spelled out. Go to the subscription piece on Apple, and there's a link to Beats and what will happen.

     

    2 clicks and you have the answer.

  • Reply 210 of 220
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,317member
    mr o wrote: »
    I recommend you reading re/code's thoughts on Apple music. (via Walt Mossberg)

    Mashable's thoughts on Apple music are a bit harsher, but they do raise some valid points.

    The Re/code article is by Peter Kafka, not Walt Mossberg.

    What Kafka failed to note was that Spotify is a sinkhole that is losing money at a spectacular rate. I presume that Apple does not plan to copy that element of the Spotify "business model".
  • Reply 211 of 220
    mr omr o Posts: 1,046member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post





    The Re/code article is by Peter Kafka, not Walt Mossberg.



    What Kafka failed to note was that Spotify is a sinkhole that is losing money at a spectacular rate. I presume that Apple does not plan to copy that element of the Spotify "business model".



    You're right: the economics of digital content is a sinking ship.

  • Reply 212 of 220
    michael scripmichael scrip Posts: 1,912member
    mr o wrote: »

    Yep.

    Also... streaming music will only be a very small part of Apple Inc. Even if Apple Music somehow fails... it won't make a dent in the company.

    However... streaming music is Spotify's ENTIRE business. And they haven't even made a dime yet. If they keep going down this road... they won't be around much longer.
  • Reply 213 of 220
    matrix07matrix07 Posts: 1,993member
    sirlance99 wrote: »
    Well I'm sorry to tell you it's not. Many articles to back up the claim. 256kbps is what you'll be getting.
    Spotify doesn't stream in MP3.  Spotify streams in OGG Vorbis which has generally been considered to have a better sound quality than MP3 and AAC but its all really personal preference and most can't hear the difference.  Most can't hear the difference in MP3/AAC/FLAC


    I think I just leave this here:

    "What they don’t consider, however, is that AAC – also known as MP4 – is a much better codec. It won’t sound worse at that lower bit rate; it will sound just as good, if not better, than 320 kbps MP3 files. And, it saves you money on bandwidth.

    While they point out that Spotify only uses 320 kbps for paid subscribers (others get 96 or 160 kbps), they still manage to say that Apple Music will sound worse. And they don’t point out that Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis files, which are much lower quality than either MP3 or AAC.
    "

    http://www.mcelhearn.com/no-cnn-apple-music-will-not-sound-worse/
  • Reply 214 of 220
    sirlance99sirlance99 Posts: 1,145member
    matrix07 wrote: »

    I think I just leave this here:

    "What they don’t consider, however, is that AAC – also known as MP4 – is a much better codec. It won’t sound worse at that lower bit rate; it will sound just as good, if not better, than 320 kbps MP3 files. And, it saves you money on bandwidth.

    While they point out that Spotify only uses 320 kbps for paid subscribers (others get 96 or 160 kbps), they still manage to say that Apple Music will sound worse. And they don’t point out that Spotify uses Ogg Vorbis files, which are much lower quality than either MP3 or AAC.
    "

    http://www.mcelhearn.com/no-cnn-apple-music-will-not-sound-worse/

    Awesome! I'll admit I was wrong given the information at the time. I'm glad to see this. Good day.
  • Reply 215 of 220
    radamoradamo Posts: 5member

    For the same price (for 1 user) Spotify is giving you bit rate (320 vs. 256).  It is a joke that Apple is offering 256 bit rate. 

  • Reply 216 of 220
    pmzpmz Posts: 3,433member

    Apple Music on Android is a huge disappointment. This should never have been allowed.

     

    A lot of people at Apple must be furious over this. Clearly it was a decision made by an upper management team that has lost respect for the values once held deeply at Apple. Android is a stolen product, and people stupid enough to use it do not deserve access to Apple-created software and services.

     

    There is no excuse for this. There is no money to be made on Android. Maybe the licensing deals demanded it be available on Android? If thats the case, they should have passed.

  • Reply 217 of 220
    jason98jason98 Posts: 763member
    pmz wrote: »
    Apple Music on Android is a huge disappointment. This should never have been allowed.

    A lot of people at Apple must be furious over this. Clearly it was a decision made by an upper management team that has lost respect for the values once held deeply at Apple.


    I guess a sole purpose of this is trying to make Connect work. I doubt it will though. Artist already have their social channels set with Facebook, tweeter and YouTube
  • Reply 218 of 220
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,312member
    pmz wrote: »
    Apple Music on Android is a huge disappointment. This should never have been allowed.

    A lot of people at Apple must be furious over this. Clearly it was a decision made by an upper management team that has lost respect for the values once held deeply at Apple. Android is a stolen product, and people stupid enough to use it do not deserve access to Apple-created software and services.

    There is no excuse for this. There is no money to be made on Android. Maybe the licensing deals demanded it be available on Android? If thats the case, they should have passed.

    People at Apple want to make money and get their software on as many devices as possible.
  • Reply 219 of 220
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,985member
    pmz wrote: »
    Apple Music on Android is a huge disappointment. This should never have been allowed.

    A lot of people at Apple must be furious over this. Clearly it was a decision made by an upper management team that has lost respect for the values once held deeply at Apple. Android is a stolen product, and people stupid enough to use it do not deserve access to Apple-created software and services.

    There is no excuse for this. There is no money to be made on Android. Maybe the licensing deals demanded it be available on Android? If thats the case, they should have passed.

    How about iTunes for Windows? Windows was stolen as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.