fixes 43 separate security issues over 71 CVE numbers! And people laugh at Microsoft...
Well, MS does that in EVERY UPDATE THEY DO (and they do it more often than Apple).... Ahem.... Who knows what insane security bug they fix, the list is so damn long! Better not to think too long about it...
Well, there's like 600M IOS and OS X users in the world (at least), if only 1 in 6 paid for streaming, Apple would make 12B in revenue and probably 6B in profits from streaming alone. I don't think this out of the question within 2-3 years. If Android and Windows users also use this service, revenues in the 20-25B range within that time frame is possible. Not bad for a "hobby" ;-).
As for this being go for artists... Only for the top 1000 (yes, for this talk of discovery, the stuff listened through streaming is the same popular songs old and new almost on a loop), which will probably on the whole get only slightly less money than from people buying their stuff outright. For everyone else, they'll probably get less money for actually selling their music, though it may help them get more money from concerts. On the whole, it won't be really great unless mid tier artists are able to get more clout to negotiate. But, with so much music available so easily and them being almost interchangeable except players in specific genres outside the mainstream, they don't have much power to get more money. In 10 years, if streamed music is global and billions pay for streaming, maybe it will be go back to being good for artists; they'll have lean years, that's for sure (a bit like the lean years from 2001-2006 when singles and album sales collapsed, only worse).
Its obvious Apple is trying to move people to the cloud instead of on device. The whole industry is moving toward that direction.
In fact if you have large music libraries why would you sub to AppleMusic in the first place?
Because, to paraphrase Senator Gramm, "I have more music than I need, but less music than I want." What if you have a large historical library that you want to keep intact, but also occasionally explore new music via streaming? Is it really so hard to imagine that someone might desire a hybrid usage model?
I just wish it would let me copy my music to my phone despite iCloud library, having to re-download everything, because Apple decides it likes me streaming even my iTunes purchases is awful. I bought a 128GB iPhone so I could have all my music available to me WITOUT a connection and now the iPhone is empty and iTunes refuses to copy content to the phone. WTF%u2026
I never tried this in iOS 8.4, but music videos either crash the the app while playing, or trying to make a music video available offline will crash the app every single time. Even after a reboot. I sent a bug report to Apple. Anybody else seeing this on their devices?
A line so brilliant I'm shocked Apple doesn't already use it in their Apple Music marketing...
I am a lifelong Apple guy, as is the family, and I have easily had over two hundred Apple branded computers, iPhones, monitors, laser printers, network devices, and iPads pass though our front door over the past two decades. But when they make a mistake, even admirers need to call them out, perhaps even more forcefully. And Apple Music has a lot of issues, many of which should have been better dealt with before launch (its not like they are a small company with limited resources)
The iTunes in the Cloud piece is frankly one of the most unsettling, un-Apple like thing I've seen. Because it forces/mandates a streaming-only approach of everything including your own iTunes-based music that is not logical, useful, reliable, necessary, and/or financially feasible for a large number of people.
And while you technically don't have to use it, you really sort of have to if you want to use Apple Music content and listen offline...So then it will discourage maximum adoption of the new service. As a significant stockholder, I question the logic of all this, especially since Apple Music is a pay service and such restrictions serve only as an impediment to paid users.
Again, it should be an option for those that wish to use it - no issues with that. But it should not be a mandatory process for all the reasons enumerated.
I didn't sign up for apple music yet, so I have a genuine question: all the stuff I bought and/or uploaded through match will have to be downloaded again but then is stored locally, yes? Or is it all streaming and no more local music?
I didn't sign up for apple music yet, so I have a genuine question: all the stuff I bought and/or uploaded through match will have to be downloaded again but then is stored locally, yes? Or is it all streaming and no more local music?
There's not a single answer.
On your computer (iTunes), your personal local music remains on your computer.
If you enable iTunes in the Cloud, your personal music is uploaded to the cloud, and STREAMS to your iOS devices. You no longer can sync your music locally to your devices. You must stream even your own music. Enabling iTunes in the Cloud lets to store Apple Music for offline listening
If you do not enable iTunes in the Cloud, you continue to sync normally, but you can only listen to Apple Music while online (wired ethernet, Wifi, or Cellular), no Offline listening.
On your computer (iTunes), your personal local music remains on your computer.
If you enable iTunes in the Cloud, your personal music is uploaded to the cloud, and STREAMS to your iOS devices. You no longer can sync your music locally to your devices. You must stream even your own music. Enabling iTunes in the Cloud lets to store Apple Music for offline listening
If you do not enable iTunes in the Cloud, you continue to sync normally, but you can only listen to Apple Music while online (wired ethernet, Wifi, or Cellular), no Offline listening.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Not being able to have my music locally with iTunes in the cloud enabled is a deal breaker to me.
Here's something else I noticed...if you use an external USB DAC for higher quality headphone or two channel listening, players such as Pure Music, Amarra Symphony, or Bit Perfect can't pass the Apple Music files to the DAC....they either remain paused, or play thought the computer speakers only
Here's something else I noticed...if you use an external USB DAC for higher quality headphone or two channel listening, players such as Pure Music, Amarra Symphony, or Bit Perfect can't pass the Apple Music files to the DAC....they either remain paused, or play thought the computer speakers only
Sounds a bit like back to the stone-age joys of DRM.
can't believe people have a hard time with minor UI tweaks.
I mean seriously, it isn't the end of the world.
Learning new stuff is good for the brain.
How is losing all the playlists I spent so much time creating "good for my brain"? Question of the day is: Who at Apple thought thiat it would be a good idea to release this without warning folks that it could happen?
A line so brilliant I'm shocked Apple doesn't already use it in their Apple Music marketing...
I am a lifelong Apple guy, as is the family, and I have easily had over two hundred Apple branded computers, iPhones, monitors, laser printers, network devices, and iPads pass though our front door over the past two decades. But when they make a mistake, even admirers need to call them out, perhaps even more forcefully. And Apple Music has a lot of issues, many of which should have been better dealt with before launch (its not like they are a small company with limited resources)
The iTunes in the Cloud piece is frankly one of the most unsettling, un-Apple like thing I've seen. Because it forces/mandates a streaming-only approach of everything including your own iTunes-based music that is not logical, useful, reliable, necessary, and/or financially feasible for a large number of people.
And while you technically don't have to use it, you really sort of have to if you want to use Apple Music content and listen offline...So then it will discourage maximum adoption of the new service. As a significant stockholder, I question the logic of all this, especially since Apple Music is a pay service and such restrictions serve only as an impediment to paid users.
Again, it should be an option for those that wish to use it - no issues with that. But it should not be a mandatory process for all the reasons enumerated.
Exactly. As an iTunes Match subscriber, my utility has been substantially diminished simply because I did not choose to enable Apple Music (which would be a second paid subscription).
With prior versions of iOS 7 and 8, while offline I was able to at least listen to the cached music files of recently played songs that the Music app stores on my device. Starting with iOS 8.4, I can no longer play those files while offline, even though they might still displace more than 2 GB of storage on my phone.
In order to listen offline, I have to consciously download the songs or playlists for offline play. I cannot simply scroll through the recently played songs when the device is offline. If I lose network connection or I choose to go offline for stretches of time to conserve battery life, my music is completely inaccessible unless I explicitly mark songs and playlists for offline playback ahead of time.
Apple is trying to force feed a DRM-enabled streaming service into apps originally designed for DRM-free music file management. iTunes Match has been a largely seamless passthrough merging of my music library with cloud storage. When working properly, it really represents Apple at its best. Apple Music has the record labels' fingerprints all over it, and it's frankly shocking how the forced merger of two paradigms has screwed over those who prefer to exercise some degree of ownership and curation over their music libraries.
I agree. I hoped that AppleMusic would help me discover music, and to have better playlists than through Genius, while keeping the status of my "owned" music through iTMS and iTunes Match.
Now it appears as though next thing to say toodbye to is radio on my ATV after the upcoming September event as I'm sure they will align this with iOS: No subscription - no radio. (I don't mean beats 1).
I didn't sign up for apple music yet, so I have a genuine question: all the stuff I bought and/or uploaded through match will have to be downloaded again but then is stored locally, yes? Or is it all streaming and no more local music?
If you want to stream your own music, I recommend signing up for Google Music's free cloud storage first to see if that takes care of your needs. If not, at least you'll have another backup of your library.
If you want to stream your own music, I recommend signing up for Google Music's free cloud storage first to see if that takes care of your needs. If not, at least you'll have another backup of your library
I would like to have "my" music locally and for download in the cloud. In addition, I would like to have the possibility to better discover new music through streaming with curation, or by any other effective means that somehow understands my taste and/or mood, as opposed to browsing like an idiot through the catalogue.
Regarding your recommendation, all what's connected to the G-word is giving me the heebie jeebies.
I honestly cannot use Apple Music as much as I'd like to. The enforcement of using iTunes in the Cloud (if you wish to set Apple Music to "Make Available Offline") is so fundamentally wrong I really have a tough time understanding how this is acceptable to many.
For if you choose this option, everything, including your own ripped/acquired elsewhere music, is now in the cloud and not on your iPhone and you are forced to stream everything. Yes, if you "merge" in the beginning, the songs stay local, but over time, as you add new music on your own, they do not sync locally.
If you're on reliable WiFi all the time, I suppose this is great (though why collectively waste all that bandwidth?) But do people really want to see what their cellular bills will be if they choose to stream on cellular, especially for a family? And there are tons of places reliable cellular is unavailable, and tower hopping will often drop streams if you're in motion.
Out of our 4 iPhones, I turned on Cellular for iTunes Music on mine only to test bout two weeks ago. Besides sporadic connectivity which made the experience poor, I just received a text from ATT that we have used 75% of our cellular plan already, and the billing cycle ends on the 27th. Can you imagine if all four of us were using it? And my use is not heavy.
I really cannot fathom why Apple did not allow local sync to continue as always, and allow downloading of streams (rentals) without iTunes in the Cloud. And as an aside, Make Available Offline must be chosen manually for every playlist, album or song, on each device. Even if you supported the iTunes in the Cloud concept by Apple, try keep track of all that.
I get what they're trying to do (greatly increase iCloud usage and eventually revenue) and reduce the need to memory in iPhones - but this is being forced way to early, and there are real usability and cost ramifications that are not adequately addressed with this model.
So since I'm not going to stream my own music, for all the reasons above, I have to turn iTunes in the Cloud off. This now means I can't download Apple Music to my iPhone to listen where and when I want. So why would I subscribe?
I'd love to hear if someone has a workaround, but several calls to Apple support are all met with clear understanding and direct acknowledgment that (most of ) the reps are equally frustrated, but no answer has been forthcoming.
You are right about most of that. Although itunes match was a viable solution until Apple music messed up music files and playlists. Match is reasonably priced and works well in my home using my previous iphone to stream everything to a bluetooth speaker. The biggest problem I see is trusting Apple with my entire music collection. They proved themselves unworthy of that trust when Apple music messed up my entire music collection.
Once kinks are worked out, I can get past any trust concerns...really its availability and cost of streaming everything, all the time, including your own music, when local sync works perfectly fine.
A family of 4 with cellular data turned on for Apple Music all four iPhones and perhaps an iPad or two will not be a cheap endeavor unless you have T-Mobile, which stinks in large swaths here.
And even then, a continuous connection here in the well-populated northern NJ region, is not close to being reliable either because of coverage gaps, cell-hopping during motion, or large interior spaces. And if you fly, then what?
It's stupid really, and I dislike saying that because I'm an all-in Apple guy. Well, not stupid, because I'm sure this was purposeful, and that's more concerning to me.
This might be partly ameliorated if all the other carriers start following T-Mobile's lead of unlimited streaming, but it still does not address the issue of all the time availability. And for an eco-focused company like Apple, does it really make sense to consume so much bandwidth and energy to constantly stream all your music over and over, when local storage works far more efficiently?
Comments
Better not
http://lists.apple.com/archives/security-announce/2015/Aug/msg00002.html
fixes 43 separate security issues over 71 CVE numbers! And people laugh at Microsoft...
Well, MS does that in EVERY UPDATE THEY DO (and they do it more often than Apple).... Ahem.... Who knows what insane security bug they fix, the list is so damn long! Better not to think too long about it...
Well, there's like 600M IOS and OS X users in the world (at least), if only 1 in 6 paid for streaming, Apple would make 12B in revenue and probably 6B in profits from streaming alone. I don't think this out of the question within 2-3 years. If Android and Windows users also use this service, revenues in the 20-25B range within that time frame is possible. Not bad for a "hobby" ;-).
As for this being go for artists... Only for the top 1000 (yes, for this talk of discovery, the stuff listened through streaming is the same popular songs old and new almost on a loop), which will probably on the whole get only slightly less money than from people buying their stuff outright. For everyone else, they'll probably get less money for actually selling their music, though it may help them get more money from concerts. On the whole, it won't be really great unless mid tier artists are able to get more clout to negotiate. But, with so much music available so easily and them being almost interchangeable except players in specific genres outside the mainstream, they don't have much power to get more money. In 10 years, if streamed music is global and billions pay for streaming, maybe it will be go back to being good for artists; they'll have lean years, that's for sure (a bit like the lean years from 2001-2006 when singles and album sales collapsed, only worse).
Because, to paraphrase Senator Gramm, "I have more music than I need, but less music than I want." What if you have a large historical library that you want to keep intact, but also occasionally explore new music via streaming? Is it really so hard to imagine that someone might desire a hybrid usage model?
then they should probably use Pandora
A line so brilliant I'm shocked Apple doesn't already use it in their Apple Music marketing...
I am a lifelong Apple guy, as is the family, and I have easily had over two hundred Apple branded computers, iPhones, monitors, laser printers, network devices, and iPads pass though our front door over the past two decades. But when they make a mistake, even admirers need to call them out, perhaps even more forcefully. And Apple Music has a lot of issues, many of which should have been better dealt with before launch (its not like they are a small company with limited resources)
The iTunes in the Cloud piece is frankly one of the most unsettling, un-Apple like thing I've seen. Because it forces/mandates a streaming-only approach of everything including your own iTunes-based music that is not logical, useful, reliable, necessary, and/or financially feasible for a large number of people.
And while you technically don't have to use it, you really sort of have to if you want to use Apple Music content and listen offline...So then it will discourage maximum adoption of the new service. As a significant stockholder, I question the logic of all this, especially since Apple Music is a pay service and such restrictions serve only as an impediment to paid users.
Again, it should be an option for those that wish to use it - no issues with that. But it should not be a mandatory process for all the reasons enumerated.
I didn't sign up for apple music yet, so I have a genuine question: all the stuff I bought and/or uploaded through match will have to be downloaded again but then is stored locally, yes? Or is it all streaming and no more local music?
There's not a single answer.
On your computer (iTunes), your personal local music remains on your computer.
If you enable iTunes in the Cloud, your personal music is uploaded to the cloud, and STREAMS to your iOS devices. You no longer can sync your music locally to your devices. You must stream even your own music. Enabling iTunes in the Cloud lets to store Apple Music for offline listening
If you do not enable iTunes in the Cloud, you continue to sync normally, but you can only listen to Apple Music while online (wired ethernet, Wifi, or Cellular), no Offline listening.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Not being able to have my music locally with iTunes in the cloud enabled is a deal breaker to me.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying.
Not being able to have my music locally with iTunes in the cloud enabled is a deal breaker to me.
Yes, it is either not well thought out or more nefarious then I'd like to think Apple is...
Here's something else I noticed...if you use an external USB DAC for higher quality headphone or two channel listening, players such as Pure Music, Amarra Symphony, or Bit Perfect can't pass the Apple Music files to the DAC....they either remain paused, or play thought the computer speakers only
Sounds a bit like back to the stone-age joys of DRM.
removed
A line so brilliant I'm shocked Apple doesn't already use it in their Apple Music marketing...
I am a lifelong Apple guy, as is the family, and I have easily had over two hundred Apple branded computers, iPhones, monitors, laser printers, network devices, and iPads pass though our front door over the past two decades. But when they make a mistake, even admirers need to call them out, perhaps even more forcefully. And Apple Music has a lot of issues, many of which should have been better dealt with before launch (its not like they are a small company with limited resources)
The iTunes in the Cloud piece is frankly one of the most unsettling, un-Apple like thing I've seen. Because it forces/mandates a streaming-only approach of everything including your own iTunes-based music that is not logical, useful, reliable, necessary, and/or financially feasible for a large number of people.
And while you technically don't have to use it, you really sort of have to if you want to use Apple Music content and listen offline...So then it will discourage maximum adoption of the new service. As a significant stockholder, I question the logic of all this, especially since Apple Music is a pay service and such restrictions serve only as an impediment to paid users.
Again, it should be an option for those that wish to use it - no issues with that. But it should not be a mandatory process for all the reasons enumerated.
Exactly. As an iTunes Match subscriber, my utility has been substantially diminished simply because I did not choose to enable Apple Music (which would be a second paid subscription).
With prior versions of iOS 7 and 8, while offline I was able to at least listen to the cached music files of recently played songs that the Music app stores on my device. Starting with iOS 8.4, I can no longer play those files while offline, even though they might still displace more than 2 GB of storage on my phone.
In order to listen offline, I have to consciously download the songs or playlists for offline play. I cannot simply scroll through the recently played songs when the device is offline. If I lose network connection or I choose to go offline for stretches of time to conserve battery life, my music is completely inaccessible unless I explicitly mark songs and playlists for offline playback ahead of time.
Apple is trying to force feed a DRM-enabled streaming service into apps originally designed for DRM-free music file management. iTunes Match has been a largely seamless passthrough merging of my music library with cloud storage. When working properly, it really represents Apple at its best. Apple Music has the record labels' fingerprints all over it, and it's frankly shocking how the forced merger of two paradigms has screwed over those who prefer to exercise some degree of ownership and curation over their music libraries.
Now it appears as though next thing to say toodbye to is radio on my ATV after the upcoming September event as I'm sure they will align this with iOS: No subscription - no radio. (I don't mean beats 1).
If you want to stream your own music, I recommend signing up for Google Music's free cloud storage first to see if that takes care of your needs. If not, at least you'll have another backup of your library.
If you want to stream your own music, I recommend signing up for Google Music's free cloud storage first to see if that takes care of your needs. If not, at least you'll have another backup of your library
I would like to have "my" music locally and for download in the cloud. In addition, I would like to have the possibility to better discover new music through streaming with curation, or by any other effective means that somehow understands my taste and/or mood, as opposed to browsing like an idiot through the catalogue.
Regarding your recommendation, all what's connected to the G-word is giving me the heebie jeebies.
Once kinks are worked out, I can get past any trust concerns...really its availability and cost of streaming everything, all the time, including your own music, when local sync works perfectly fine.
A family of 4 with cellular data turned on for Apple Music all four iPhones and perhaps an iPad or two will not be a cheap endeavor unless you have T-Mobile, which stinks in large swaths here.
And even then, a continuous connection here in the well-populated northern NJ region, is not close to being reliable either because of coverage gaps, cell-hopping during motion, or large interior spaces. And if you fly, then what?
It's stupid really, and I dislike saying that because I'm an all-in Apple guy. Well, not stupid, because I'm sure this was purposeful, and that's more concerning to me.
This might be partly ameliorated if all the other carriers start following T-Mobile's lead of unlimited streaming, but it still does not address the issue of all the time availability. And for an eco-focused company like Apple, does it really make sense to consume so much bandwidth and energy to constantly stream all your music over and over, when local storage works far more efficiently?