greg uvan

First, the ~ in the path doesn't specify "this Mac" it specifies the current user's home folder, wherever that may be. 

But, there is a much easier way to get to the library. Click the Go menu in the finder, press Option, the Library appears in the list, click it.

By the way, the Command-Shift-Period shortcut is an excellent tip. 

avon b7 said:

I'm for choice in distribution models and less power for store controllers.

I'd like to see developers have the option to opt out of the App Store if it suits their needs and for Apple to have less say on what is 'acceptable' or not. Likewise, choice would then extend to the end user.

I don't understand why there is any anti-trust in cases like this, when Android exists. Microsoft was under scrutiny because they were so dominant by market share. Everyone who buys an iPhone knows that they have to use the App Store to get apps. And everyone knows that, they can either jailbreak (if they so please, there are even services that will do it for you), or they can buy one of many many android phones that are just fine, and that don't have the same app store restrictions.

It just feels like everyone who buys into Apple, either as a consumer getting an iPhone, or an app developer making an app for iPhone, they go in with their eyes wide open. Everyone since the dawn of the App Store has known that it's the only shop for apps, and that Apple charges developers a percent. If you look at the Mac side of things, the "pass-on" has always been obvious in iOS. A Mac App bought outside the store is often less expensive than the same Mac App bought in the store. Obviously, because of pass-on.

king editor the grate said:

As a musician of sorts, it's humbling to discover people from around the world streaming "Golf Balls & Condoms." It's disheartening, however, to discover that enjoying or/and enduring it five times in a row generates a whopping .00001 cent for its creator.

Interesting thought. It seems like, the first time you listen to something, it shouldn't generate much money for the artist at all, because you're just previewing it. Maybe it sucks and you hate it, and you're never going to listen to it again. However, if you play it a second time, that should generate the highest payout to the artist, because the replay indicates the listener actually liked it so much they want to hear it again. But then, subsequent listens should decrease in payout along some curve back down to the tiny amount the artist is currently getting for every listen. That would probably give a boost to the artists who are actually enjoyed most, at the expense of not paying out anything to the artists who get a single listen from lots of people, but where few people actually like them enough to listen again. Something like that. I'm just spitballing.

Time to hire him! Smart people need to be channeled into good ends, not put in prison. Hire him and keep him occupied by hacking into Russia or doing other state espionage.

nunzy said:

What would happen if Apple banned Spotify from all of its devices?

They might lose a couple of device sales, but probably not many. Apple has the ability. But do they have the nerve?

They'd be subject to anti competition legislation. It's something of a mystery to me that they aren't already, for the fact that the Music app comes prebundled with every iPhone. Doesn't it feel a bit like Internet Explorer being bundled with Windows and giving MS an unfair advantage over Netscape? 

I'm an Apple Music subscriber, however, and I quite like it. But, I'm one of those weirdos who likes iTunes. I've been using iTunes since it ran on Mac OS 9. My whole history and collected music library, ratings, playlists, etc are in iTunes. It just makes sense to stay with iTunes, which now makes a music streaming service available. For me, it never made sense to even bother with Spotify because it was a complete foreign environment.