Well, that'a the OPPOSITE of good reporting. If new info come in that changes something major to the news tone and content, you don't fracking bury it at the bottom with the same god damn clickbait title and no change to the your introductory paragraph.
You issue a followup article under a new byline and put a link to that new article at the bottom of the previous one.
You can ad things at the bottom when its breaking news and your adding to the same news as you go. Say, "massive Tsunami hits Japan", which then gets developed under this byline as news come along.
In this case, the info related in the byline are said to be FALSE by the company who actually knows about them. That invalidates the whole article and merits its own article.
Well, the first article had no merit anyway. It's a third party doing what third parties do with Apple, guessing and aiming and being completely wrong. It's a rumor, with most being rumor sites. It isn't a tsunami that will actually affect people's lives.
Well, the first article had no merit anyway. It's a third party doing what third parties do with Apple, guessing and aiming and being completely wrong. It's a rumor, with most being rumor sites. It isn't a tsunami that will actually affect people's lives.
It wasn't a rumor, it was reported AS NEWS. You know, survey and stuff... (sic)
That its crap is a totally separate issue.
Meaning the fact that the shoddyness of this should either have been pointed out in the article, or this "news" should not have been relayed at all. If some idiots spouts crap that "feels real".... Doesn't mean they should get a platform to spread their FUD.
Sites like the Verge and MacRumours are very unethical in almost everything they put out.
You think that has no effect?
Why is it so hard for sites to not be run by unethical dicks?
Glad Apple responded to this horse-shit with real data. Predictably, troll-loving sites like Macrumors and theVerge have yet to update with this new info.
EDIT: Oh, even worse they did "update it", by burying Apple's response at the end of the article in fineprint (which most won't get to anyway), and leaving the headline exactly as is.
Part of the discrepancy might come from the survey looking at US users versus global users and potentially from tech savvy people.
I think for me the take away numbers here are Apple's own. 20% of 11 million switched off. 11 million out of 500 million Apple ID...
It is sad I think. Streaming music is about the passed, the back catalog of the world's music and about the labels trying to extract cents worth of value out of something that is basically regardless of the commercial-ethical argument, public domain.
So Apple is investing all this energy into basically nothing.
Providing a platform for the music yet to be made, the artists yet to be discovered and for them to engage fans, make money and tell their story.
That is what is worth investing in and worth doing the percentages on..
and in that department Apple is the big player along with Band Camp and Sound Cloud. Spotify and Google et al don't even play in that world with any care because they don't build new value.
How would Apple do this? You input your Spotify username and password so that Apple can parse your account to recreate those playlists or does Spotify have an export option that Apple Music could then use to import your playlists? The latter seems unlikely, even though you compare it to an address book that has that option, and the former seems like it might be crossing some legal boundaries. If not, I implore you to you write to Apple requesting that feature.
Actually: One of the cool things Spotify has that Apple Music doesn't is an API ( https://developer.spotify.com/web-api/ ) that any developer can use to query this kind of information.
This has lead to a fairly decent ecosystem of apps that all work with Spotify (including Uber and Songkick which I personally use).
I haven't heard about anything similar for Apple Music...
Frankly it's a bit concerning that 21% of people turned down 3 months of free music...essentially $30 of a competitors product for free. I don't think that bodes well for the service.
I've had Spotify and Beats and Apple Music is worse than both. As a stock owner. I really hope they revamp the UI ASAP.
Actually: One of the cool things Spotify has that Apple Music doesn't is an API ( https://developer.spotify.com/web-api/ ) that any developer can use to query this kind of information.
This has lead to a fairly decent ecosystem of apps that all work with Spotify (including Uber and Songkick which I personally use).
I haven't heard about anything similar for Apple Music...
That's a nice feature. How long after Spotify was launched did that API appear? Does Pandora (or anyone else) have a similar API?
To be clear, you're saying that at the very least Apple could legally built-in a simple mechanism that will allow your Spotify playlists to be copied over into Apple Music? If that's the case, that seems like a huge oversight for Apple Music the would help pull users from Spotify (et al.).
Frankly it's a bit concerning that 21% of people turned down 3 months of free music...essentially $30 of a competitors product for free. I don't think that bodes well for the service.
It sounds like you're looking at it from the standpoint of a streaming music user. I would expect that there are plenty of iPhone, iPad and Mac users that have never used Spotify and only tried Apple Music because it was 1) from Apple, 2) showed up on their devices with a "try me" button in the place where they usually play their music. I may have tried Spotify or Pandora a long time ago, but I know I'm not the sort for streaming music like it's radio station or Internet nickelodeon so I have yet to initiate my free Apple Music trial. If and when there is some compelling reason I will give a go, but I'm fairly doubtful that will happen. I am guessing most customers aren't as aware about their music's media location as I am.
I hate this new industry poping up: Releasing BS reports about Apple products and services.
Hope Apple goes thermo-nuck on these micky mouse companies.
This is a problem, in part, of Apple's own making. Being tight-lipped has been a huge part of its DNA, and not always for the better.
The problem with the type of response we've seen here is, the next time Apple does not say anything about a rumor concerning a product or a service, people will logically assume that the rumor was true. Either have the diiscipline to be totally tight-lipped, or say a lot (see, e.g., Google, Amazon).
This is a problem, in part, of Apple's own making. Being tight-lipped has been a huge part of its DNA, and not always for the better.
The problem with the type of response we've seen here is, the next time Apple does not say anything about a rumor concerning a product or a service, people will logically assume that the rumor was true. Either have the diiscipline to be totally tight-lipped, or say a lot (see, e.g., Google, Amazon).
20% are not using it after tying it. That's all Apple gave us. Everything else from you is FUD.
No, Apple gave us much more info than that. Apple revealed that, so far, 11 million Apple account holders are taking advantage of the 3 months free trial. That tells us the 789 million Apple account holders didn't even sign up for the 3 months free trial. These 789 million account holders are not using AppleMusic, without ever trying it. Never mind the 20% that are no longer using AppleMusic, after trying it. Even if it's 40%. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the 789 million Apple account holders that aren't even interested in subscription music to the point that they won't even try it for 3 months for free. Apple needs to work on getting these Apple account holders interested in paying for subscription music. Even if all 11 million people that signed for the free 3 months eventually subscribes, AppleMusic will not dominate unless all 11 million people are Spotify subscribers and they end up quitting Spotify. Then Apple will have 11 million subscribers and Spotify only 9 million.
Glad Apple responded to this horse-shit with real data. Predictably, troll-loving sites like Macrumors and theVerge have yet to update with this new info.
EDIT: Oh, even worse they did "update it", by burying Apple's response at the end of the article in fineprint (which most won't get to anyway), and leaving the headline exactly as is.
It's sad, I used to be an avid Mac Rumors fan, now I agree with you, they are not worth the time to visit. OK I admit they banned me for posting individual response not aggregating them, but that's not the reason I stay with AI, it's the regulars like you that keep me coming back.
Glad Apple responded to this horse-shit with real data. Predictably, troll-loving sites like Macrumors and theVerge have yet to update with this new info.
EDIT: Oh, even worse they did "update it", by burying Apple's response at the end of the article in fineprint (which most won't get to anyway), and leaving the headline exactly as is.
When Jeff Bezos said a few words to defend against the NYT article about the bad working conditions at Amazon, all the media made a big deal out of it, even bigger than the original NYT article. That's because the media is in love with Amazon and Bezos.
When Jeff Bezos said a few words to defend against the NYT article about the bad working conditions at Amazon, all the media made a big deal out of it, even bigger than the original NYT article. That's because the media is in love with Amazon and Bezos.
No, that is investors. Despite having no real value and being basically unable to turn a profit, they just keep buying the stock...
There is a phrase I read somewhere that states have half knowledge is worst than having no knowledge. With refuting the MusicWatch's report, Apple just fell into that trap. I am getting a little nervous about how Apple is getting a bit weak when it comes to their recent decisions and it's reversal, including responding to media like that. Steve certainly wouldn't have done so. By responding so quickly, Apple is actually raising more questions for media and forcing them to derive to some different conclusions. I think they should just stick to providing the numbers during the quarterly reports, which are facts and not rumors. While we are talking about facts, maybe they should just provide the Apple Watch numbers (starting next quarter), so there is no more theorizing the numbers by all these rumor sites.
I have always thought and still continue to think that Steve did make a right call with succession plan and he had place right set of people and culture in place at Apple to continue the legacy for many more years. Though, lately I am missing Steve Jobs !
I cancelled my free trial after a few days, tried a number of the radio channels whilst out walking and I just totally disliked their choices. Will stick to purchasing my own music and mixing my own playlists I think.
It's sad, I used to be an avid Mac Rumors fan, now I agree with you, they are not worth the time to visit. OK I admit they banned me for posting individual response not aggregating them, but that's not the reason I stay with AI, it's the regulars like you that keep me coming back.
I agree with you on Mac Rumors. There is not a more anti-Apple cesspool on the planet, the Verge included. It's sad that all of these "Apple fans" who supposedly own all of this Apple gear, have wasted so much of their money on shit products from such a shit company that can't do anything right. Criticism is one thing, but that site is full of outright hatred.
I care about music, and Apple Music has a lot of it. Just yesterday I listened to Ferdinand Ries' WInd Nocturnos resorded by CPO. It seems that most of CPOs catalogue is there. 2 days ago I found Julius Röntgen's cello sonatas. Searching for "Bajazet" I found both Vivaldi's and Gasparini's operas there. And of course I have found the recordings of favorites from my youth - "It's a beautiful day", "Curved air", "Quicksilver". A great service.
They also provide interesting themed playlists, even though I'm not that interested in that aspect of the service. I will definitely be a paying customer when my 90 days are up.
I care about music, and Apple Music has a lot of it. Just yesterday I listened to Ferdinand Ries' WInd Nocturnos resorded by CPO. It seems that most of CPOs catalogue is there. 2 days ago I found Julius Röntgen's cello sonatas. Searching for "Bajazet" I found both Vivaldi's and Gasparini's operas there. And of course I have found the recordings of favorites from my youth - "It's a beautiful day", "Curved air", "Quicksilver". A great service.
They also provide interesting themed playlists, even though I'm not that interested in that aspect of the service. I will definitely be a paying customer when my 90 days are up.
How are they at listing the orchestra and conductor? Do they list the the same compositions by various orchestras and conductors?
No, Apple gave us much more info than that. Apple revealed that, so far, 11 million Apple account holders are taking advantage of the 3 months free trial. That tells us the 789 million Apple account holders didn't even sign up for the 3 months free trial. These 789 million account holders are not using AppleMusic, without ever trying it. Never mind the 20% that are no longer using AppleMusic, after trying it. Even if it's 40%. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the 789 million Apple account holders that aren't even interested in subscription music to the point that they won't even try it for 3 months for free. Apple needs to work on getting these Apple account holders interested in paying for subscription music. Even if all 11 million people that signed for the free 3 months eventually subscribes, AppleMusic will not dominate unless all 11 million people are Spotify subscribers and they end up quitting Spotify. Then Apple will have 11 million subscribers and Spotify only 9 million.
Unless you KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T SIGN, or KNOW THEY WILL NEVER SIGN, THIS IS FUD. You'Re on Ignore now. Bye.
Comments
Well, that'a the OPPOSITE of good reporting. If new info come in that changes something major to the news tone and content, you don't fracking bury it at the bottom with the same god damn clickbait title and no change to the your introductory paragraph.
You issue a followup article under a new byline and put a link to that new article at the bottom of the previous one.
You can ad things at the bottom when its breaking news and your adding to the same news as you go. Say, "massive Tsunami hits Japan", which then gets developed under this byline as news come along.
In this case, the info related in the byline are said to be FALSE by the company who actually knows about them. That invalidates the whole article and merits its own article.
Well, the first article had no merit anyway. It's a third party doing what third parties do with Apple, guessing and aiming and being completely wrong. It's a rumor, with most being rumor sites. It isn't a tsunami that will actually affect people's lives.
Well, the first article had no merit anyway. It's a third party doing what third parties do with Apple, guessing and aiming and being completely wrong. It's a rumor, with most being rumor sites. It isn't a tsunami that will actually affect people's lives.
It wasn't a rumor, it was reported AS NEWS. You know, survey and stuff... (sic)
That its crap is a totally separate issue.
Meaning the fact that the shoddyness of this should either have been pointed out in the article, or this "news" should not have been relayed at all. If some idiots spouts crap that "feels real".... Doesn't mean they should get a platform to spread their FUD.
Sites like the Verge and MacRumours are very unethical in almost everything they put out.
You think that has no effect?
Why is it so hard for sites to not be run by unethical dicks?
Doesn't take much effort to do things right.
"48 percent of Apple Music trialists have stopped using the service, but Apple has denied that claim"
I think for me the take away numbers here are Apple's own. 20% of 11 million switched off. 11 million out of 500 million Apple ID...
It is sad I think. Streaming music is about the passed, the back catalog of the world's music and about the labels trying to extract cents worth of value out of something that is basically regardless of the commercial-ethical argument, public domain.
So Apple is investing all this energy into basically nothing.
Providing a platform for the music yet to be made, the artists yet to be discovered and for them to engage fans, make money and tell their story.
That is what is worth investing in and worth doing the percentages on..
and in that department Apple is the big player along with Band Camp and Sound Cloud. Spotify and Google et al don't even play in that world with any care because they don't build new value.
Actually: One of the cool things Spotify has that Apple Music doesn't is an API ( https://developer.spotify.com/web-api/ ) that any developer can use to query this kind of information.
This has lead to a fairly decent ecosystem of apps that all work with Spotify (including Uber and Songkick which I personally use).
I haven't heard about anything similar for Apple Music...
I've had Spotify and Beats and Apple Music is worse than both. As a stock owner. I really hope they revamp the UI ASAP.
That's a nice feature. How long after Spotify was launched did that API appear? Does Pandora (or anyone else) have a similar API?
To be clear, you're saying that at the very least Apple could legally built-in a simple mechanism that will allow your Spotify playlists to be copied over into Apple Music? If that's the case, that seems like a huge oversight for Apple Music the would help pull users from Spotify (et al.).
It sounds like you're looking at it from the standpoint of a streaming music user. I would expect that there are plenty of iPhone, iPad and Mac users that have never used Spotify and only tried Apple Music because it was 1) from Apple, 2) showed up on their devices with a "try me" button in the place where they usually play their music. I may have tried Spotify or Pandora a long time ago, but I know I'm not the sort for streaming music like it's radio station or Internet nickelodeon so I have yet to initiate my free Apple Music trial. If and when there is some compelling reason I will give a go, but I'm fairly doubtful that will happen. I am guessing most customers aren't as aware about their music's media location as I am.
This is a problem, in part, of Apple's own making. Being tight-lipped has been a huge part of its DNA, and not always for the better.
The problem with the type of response we've seen here is, the next time Apple does not say anything about a rumor concerning a product or a service, people will logically assume that the rumor was true. Either have the diiscipline to be totally tight-lipped, or say a lot (see, e.g., Google, Amazon).
I agree, it's risky.
20% are not using it after tying it. That's all Apple gave us. Everything else from you is FUD.
No, Apple gave us much more info than that. Apple revealed that, so far, 11 million Apple account holders are taking advantage of the 3 months free trial. That tells us the 789 million Apple account holders didn't even sign up for the 3 months free trial. These 789 million account holders are not using AppleMusic, without ever trying it. Never mind the 20% that are no longer using AppleMusic, after trying it. Even if it's 40%. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the 789 million Apple account holders that aren't even interested in subscription music to the point that they won't even try it for 3 months for free. Apple needs to work on getting these Apple account holders interested in paying for subscription music. Even if all 11 million people that signed for the free 3 months eventually subscribes, AppleMusic will not dominate unless all 11 million people are Spotify subscribers and they end up quitting Spotify. Then Apple will have 11 million subscribers and Spotify only 9 million.
It's sad, I used to be an avid Mac Rumors fan, now I agree with you, they are not worth the time to visit. OK I admit they banned me for posting individual response not aggregating them, but that's not the reason I stay with AI, it's the regulars like you that keep me coming back.
Glad Apple responded to this horse-shit with real data. Predictably, troll-loving sites like Macrumors and theVerge have yet to update with this new info.
EDIT: Oh, even worse they did "update it", by burying Apple's response at the end of the article in fineprint (which most won't get to anyway), and leaving the headline exactly as is.
http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/18/9172309/people-are-giving-up-on-apple-music-survey
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/18/apple-music-adoption-musicwatch-data/
When Jeff Bezos said a few words to defend against the NYT article about the bad working conditions at Amazon, all the media made a big deal out of it, even bigger than the original NYT article. That's because the media is in love with Amazon and Bezos.
When Jeff Bezos said a few words to defend against the NYT article about the bad working conditions at Amazon, all the media made a big deal out of it, even bigger than the original NYT article. That's because the media is in love with Amazon and Bezos.
No, that is investors. Despite having no real value and being basically unable to turn a profit, they just keep buying the stock...
There is a phrase I read somewhere that states have half knowledge is worst than having no knowledge. With refuting the MusicWatch's report, Apple just fell into that trap. I am getting a little nervous about how Apple is getting a bit weak when it comes to their recent decisions and it's reversal, including responding to media like that. Steve certainly wouldn't have done so. By responding so quickly, Apple is actually raising more questions for media and forcing them to derive to some different conclusions. I think they should just stick to providing the numbers during the quarterly reports, which are facts and not rumors. While we are talking about facts, maybe they should just provide the Apple Watch numbers (starting next quarter), so there is no more theorizing the numbers by all these rumor sites.
I have always thought and still continue to think that Steve did make a right call with succession plan and he had place right set of people and culture in place at Apple to continue the legacy for many more years. Though, lately I am missing Steve Jobs !
I agree with you on Mac Rumors. There is not a more anti-Apple cesspool on the planet, the Verge included. It's sad that all of these "Apple fans" who supposedly own all of this Apple gear, have wasted so much of their money on shit products from such a shit company that can't do anything right. Criticism is one thing, but that site is full of outright hatred.
I care about music, and Apple Music has a lot of it. Just yesterday I listened to Ferdinand Ries' WInd Nocturnos resorded by CPO. It seems that most of CPOs catalogue is there. 2 days ago I found Julius Röntgen's cello sonatas. Searching for "Bajazet" I found both Vivaldi's and Gasparini's operas there. And of course I have found the recordings of favorites from my youth - "It's a beautiful day", "Curved air", "Quicksilver". A great service.
They also provide interesting themed playlists, even though I'm not that interested in that aspect of the service. I will definitely be a paying customer when my 90 days are up.
How are they at listing the orchestra and conductor? Do they list the the same compositions by various orchestras and conductors?
No, Apple gave us much more info than that. Apple revealed that, so far, 11 million Apple account holders are taking advantage of the 3 months free trial. That tells us the 789 million Apple account holders didn't even sign up for the 3 months free trial. These 789 million account holders are not using AppleMusic, without ever trying it. Never mind the 20% that are no longer using AppleMusic, after trying it. Even if it's 40%. It's a drop in the bucket compared to the 789 million Apple account holders that aren't even interested in subscription music to the point that they won't even try it for 3 months for free. Apple needs to work on getting these Apple account holders interested in paying for subscription music. Even if all 11 million people that signed for the free 3 months eventually subscribes, AppleMusic will not dominate unless all 11 million people are Spotify subscribers and they end up quitting Spotify. Then Apple will have 11 million subscribers and Spotify only 9 million.
Unless you KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T SIGN, or KNOW THEY WILL NEVER SIGN, THIS IS FUD. You'Re on Ignore now. Bye.