matrix077 said: I understand that you have a grudge on Apple removed something useful to you but let be frank, it has nothing to do with quality of Apple Music itself. The good (or bad) of Apple Music will be determined when you’re USING Apple Music, not because it got rid of some function non Apple Music user used.
Personally I think Apple should re-instate the download function from Home Sharing or from iTunes syncing.
Oh and Apple Music Library doesn’t count toward your iCloud storage, and yes you can download your music to your device in advance if you concern about the Net connection.
I use Apple Music. It's OK, but the interface leaves a lot to be desired. What Apple removed was the ability to use my own library between devices without subscribing to one of Apple's services. If they re-instated that feature, they wouldn't have driven so many to sign up for Apple Music. I like to chose the services I use, not be forced into them. And, what I meant by my storage/Net comment, is that if you have to pull it from Apple's cloud, rather than your own system. As for my grudge... it's because I remember an Apple that didn't constantly pull stupid crap like this.
Soli said: It’s absolutely not a mess. Not preferring it over other services and not likely certain aspects is not the same as “being a complete and utter mess.”
The service works and clearly there’s a huge percentage of customers who prefer it. There’s also no lock in. Apple Watch users can only connect with Apple Music to LTE, but the number of Series 3 with Cellular wearers who aren’t carrying iPhones has to be a statistically irrelevant number at this point.
I'm not comparing it to other service, just to previous incarnations of itself. The UI isn't good, album art and meta-data are a mess, and it doesn't do basic stuff I'd expect it to do (like allowing Siri to start a playlist while I'm driving, for example). I also keep running across tracks I'd like but aren't there (but they are on other services). For example, an album might be missing a track that would be on it if you bought the CD.
StrangeDays said: You keep saying this but I don’t know why. You can stream or download your own music. You can do it via iTunes sync (manually) the old way, or use iCloud Music Library.
Each step in there says to connect the device to your computer. If you do that and sync, then you really have a mess. I'm talking about the ability to download tracks from my home iTunes library over WiFi.
By the last count they're effectively a tide pool compared to the other major players. Unfortunately for them, this is an industry that needs a minimum threshold of paying customers to support the infrastructure costs, which is probably why they're late on their royalty payments.
To their credit, they do have incredible mindshare for being so tiny. Does anyone even use Deezer? How many know that Napster was also now in this business? Also to their credit is they pay better than other services per play (or, rather, when they do pay).
I have no reason to want Tidal et al. to fail and several reasons why I'd like them to find a viable niche, but it looks like Tidal will continue to be on the ebb.
By the last count they're effectively a tide pool compared to the other major players. Unfortunately for them, this is an industry that needs a minimum threshold of paying customers to support the infrastructure costs, which is probably why they're late on their royalty payments.
I had never heard of them until this article. But, yea, you either have to have scale or money. Too many of these services don't really have a (good) money-making plan and end up gone.
matrix077 said: I understand that you have a grudge on Apple removed something useful to you but let be frank, it has nothing to do with quality of Apple Music itself. The good (or bad) of Apple Music will be determined when you’re USING Apple Music, not because it got rid of some function non Apple Music user used.
Personally I think Apple should re-instate the download function from Home Sharing or from iTunes syncing.
Oh and Apple Music Library doesn’t count toward your iCloud storage, and yes you can download your music to your device in advance if you concern about the Net connection.
I use Apple Music. It's OK, but the interface leaves a lot to be desired. What Apple removed was the ability to use my own library between devices without subscribing to one of Apple's services. If they re-instated that feature, they wouldn't have driven so many to sign up for Apple Music. I like to chose the services I use, not be forced into them. And, what I meant by my storage/Net comment, is that if you have to pull it from Apple's cloud, rather than your own system. As for my grudge... it's because I remember an Apple that didn't constantly pull stupid crap like this.
Soli said: It’s absolutely not a mess. Not preferring it over other services and not likely certain aspects is not the same as “being a complete and utter mess.”
The service works and clearly there’s a huge percentage of customers who prefer it. There’s also no lock in. Apple Watch users can only connect with Apple Music to LTE, but the number of Series 3 with Cellular wearers who aren’t carrying iPhones has to be a statistically irrelevant number at this point.
I'm not comparing it to other service, just to previous incarnations of itself. The UI isn't good, album art and meta-data are a mess, and it doesn't do basic stuff I'd expect it to do (like allowing Siri to start a playlist while I'm driving, for example). I also keep running across tracks I'd like but aren't there (but they are on other services). For example, an album might be missing a track that would be on it if you bought the CD.
StrangeDays said: You keep saying this but I don’t know why. You can stream or download your own music. You can do it via iTunes sync (manually) the old way, or use iCloud Music Library.
Each step in there says to connect the device to your computer. If you do that and sync, then you really have a mess. I'm talking about the ability to download tracks from my home iTunes library over WiFi.
iTunes WiFi sync still works just fine (added several albums to a synced iTunes playlist yesterday and they synced over to the iPhone automatically).
Or are you saying that this no longer works when Apple Music is switched on? Why should it? Doesn’t it upload your music library into the Cloud?
I don’t subscribe to Apple Music, but have been toying with the idea of buying iTunes Match for years now. I love the concept. I’ve been scared shitless by stories of messed-up tags, covers, and of substituted versions. I have a 90,000-track library that is my music archive and meticulously tagged. And several albums have several versions (e.g. original release and later remaster from different mixes and/or different order). I really don’t want to risk that.
spheric said: iTunes WiFi sync still works just fine (added several albums to a synced iTunes playlist yesterday and they synced over to the iPhone automatically).
Or are you saying that this no longer works when Apple Music is switched on? Why should it? Doesn’t it upload your music library into the Cloud?
I don’t subscribe to Apple Music, but have been toying with the idea of buying iTunes Match for years now. I love the concept. I’ve been scared shitless by stories of messed-up tags, covers, and of substituted versions. I have a 90,000-track library that is my music archive and meticulously tagged. And several albums have several versions (e.g. original release and later remaster from different mixes and/or different order). I really don’t want to risk that.
No, I wouldn't risk that either!
No, not sync, but the ability to download tracks locally on iOS devices/Macs from a master 'Home Shared' iTunes library. You used to be able to browse that library with an iPad, for example, and pick a track to download locally. After Apple introduced Apple Music and iTunes Match, they got rid of that feature. The only way to do it now, is to either sync or subscribe.
We ended up subscribing to Apple Music, so the family is relatively happy again. But, it costs extra money. And... my music collection isn't as organized as it once was (among other issues).
Except that Tidal is the best music streaming service available.
"Serious audiophiles" Not to denigrate their appreciation of high-quality sound reproduction, "serious" audiophiles amount to a very, very small segment ...That's probably why it doesn't provide lossless reproduction. That shouldn't be construed as a weakness on the part of anybody not offering lossless.
I never understand why Apple does not do BOTH: Offer music for purchase in 256 AAC and lossless. I went back to listening to CD's when sit down and L.I.S.T.E.N to music on a high end system.
For "normal" background music AAC and even 256 MPG is just fine for me.
Except that Tidal is the best music streaming service available. It's the only service that will stream its entire catalogue in lossless data formats, making it the best format for serious audiophiles. It also has an amazing host of extras -- music videos, advance rights to certain concert tickets, etc.
"Serious audiophiles" Not to denigrate their appreciation of high-quality sound reproduction, "serious" audiophiles amount to a very, very small segment (dare I say less than 1%?) of the streaming music market. As a marketing point to the masses, lossless isn't an issue (especially those that buy Amazon or Google smart speakers).
Apple Music's target market is much, much larger than the "serious" audiophile market. That's probably why it doesn't provide lossless reproduction. That shouldn't be construed as a weakness on the part of anybody not offering lossless.
And a blindfolded test, proved that most audiophiles are full shit. They got all answers wrong and couldn't hear the difference. Just a very small portion has an above average hearing.
Except that Tidal is the best music streaming service available. It's the only service that will stream its entire catalogue in lossless data formats, making it the best format for serious audiophiles.
A fact which is not in dispute but also a fact that is pretty much meaningless and out of touch with how streaming music is used mostly. For all intents and purposes, and difference in quality would not be noticed by anyone, especially on the equipment they use to listen to music. Higher quality can also be a disadvantage in terms of data usage, especially when the music is consumed on mobile devices.
It also has an amazing host of extras -- music videos, advance rights to certain concert tickets, etc.
All of the services offer their own forms of "amazing extras".
I was done with Apple Music years ago when it completely destroyed my (legally) ripped collection of lossless music. It also corrupted my library of 3,000+ past iTunes purchases -- something Apple has yet to fully fix.
I still love Apple products, but I will be damned if I ever try Apple Music again. And I sure hope Tidal doesn't fold.
While it is unfortunate that Apple music had a few early hiccups in the beginning, such issues do not exist today. For that matter, even in the worst case scenario, you should have had adequate backups from which to restore your music library from. While it's fair to blame Apple for the initial hiccups, it's also fair to blame you for not having an adequate backup strategy. I suspect that same problem will be an issue for you in other areas eventually.
While it is unfortunate that Apple music had a few early hiccups in the beginning, such issues do not exist today. For that matter, even in the worst case scenario, you should have had adequate backups from which to restore your music library from. While it's fair to blame Apple for the initial hiccups, it's also fair to blame you for not having an adequate backup strategy. I suspect that same problem will be an issue for you in other areas eventually.
If you had read on, you would have found that he DID have a working backup strategy.
But testing something until you discover that it's surreptitiously begun mangling your archive can take weeks, and any changes made since then are lost if you return to the pre-subscription state.
Also, it will cost you at least an afternoon's work (if not a lot more) for something that should simply not be a problem.
2) After that happened did you at least decide to start backing up your data? At some point the user has to take responsibility for not taking precautions. That doesn't mean that Apple wasn't at fault, but it means you also have a personal responsibility. Like if a woman has a stroke while driving and runs off the road onto the sidewalk and hits you. While that's not your fault the car drove up on the sidewalk, if you walking and holding an iPad up to your face watching an episode of The Benny Hill Show on YouTube whilst walking there's a finger to be pointed at you, too.
....purchases -- something Apple has yet to fully fix.
I still love Apple products, but I will be damned if I ever try Apple Music again. And I sure hope Tidal doesn't fold.
You had no backups of your library?
Prediction: if you ever get an answer to this question, it will include some phrase akin to "that isn't the point."
As for my music files, I did have it backed up. ***But that isn't the point*** -- the files are fine, it's everything else ...
By the last count they're effectively a tide pool compared to the other major players. Unfortunately for them, this is an industry that needs a minimum threshold of paying customers to support the infrastructure costs, which is probably why they're late on their royalty payments.
To their credit, they do have incredible mindshare for being so tiny. Does anyone even use Deezer? How many know that Napster was also now in this business? Also to their credit is they pay better than other services per play (or, rather, when they do pay).
I have no reason to want Tidal et al. to fail and several reasons why I'd like them to find a viable niche, but it looks like Tidal will continue to be on the ebb.
Wow I forgot about Napster's streaming service!! They were in it before Spotify I believe. I remember them comparing their service to the iPod pre-iPhone. Their ad said something like "iPod = 1,000 songs, Napster = 1,000,000 songs".
Comments
What Apple removed was the ability to use my own library between devices without subscribing to one of Apple's services.
If they re-instated that feature, they wouldn't have driven so many to sign up for Apple Music. I like to chose the services I use, not be forced into them.
And, what I meant by my storage/Net comment, is that if you have to pull it from Apple's cloud, rather than your own system.
As for my grudge... it's because I remember an Apple that didn't constantly pull stupid crap like this.
I'm not comparing it to other service, just to previous incarnations of itself. The UI isn't good, album art and meta-data are a mess, and it doesn't do basic stuff I'd expect it to do (like allowing Siri to start a playlist while I'm driving, for example). I also keep running across tracks I'd like but aren't there (but they are on other services). For example, an album might be missing a track that would be on it if you bought the CD.
Each step in there says to connect the device to your computer. If you do that and sync, then you really have a mess. I'm talking about the ability to download tracks from my home iTunes library over WiFi.
To their credit, they do have incredible mindshare for being so tiny. Does anyone even use Deezer? How many know that Napster was also now in this business? Also to their credit is they pay better than other services per play (or, rather, when they do pay).
I have no reason to want Tidal et al. to fail and several reasons why I'd like them to find a viable niche, but it looks like Tidal will continue to be on the ebb.
But, yea, you either have to have scale or money. Too many of these services don't really have a (good) money-making plan and end up gone.
Or are you saying that this no longer works when Apple Music is switched on?
Why should it? Doesn’t it upload your music library into the Cloud?
I don’t subscribe to Apple Music, but have been toying with the idea of buying iTunes Match for years now. I love the concept.
I’ve been scared shitless by stories of messed-up tags, covers, and of substituted versions.
I have a 90,000-track library that is my music archive and meticulously tagged. And several albums have several versions (e.g. original release and later remaster from different mixes and/or different order). I really don’t want to risk that.
No, not sync, but the ability to download tracks locally on iOS devices/Macs from a master 'Home Shared' iTunes library. You used to be able to browse that library with an iPad, for example, and pick a track to download locally. After Apple introduced Apple Music and iTunes Match, they got rid of that feature. The only way to do it now, is to either sync or subscribe.
We ended up subscribing to Apple Music, so the family is relatively happy again. But, it costs extra money. And... my music collection isn't as organized as it once was (among other issues).
But testing something until you discover that it's surreptitiously begun mangling your archive can take weeks, and any changes made since then are lost if you return to the pre-subscription state.
Also, it will cost you at least an afternoon's work (if not a lot more) for something that should simply not be a problem.
They fucked up.
Prediction: if you ever get an answer to this question, it will include some phrase akin to "that isn't the point." Eightzero FTW!