Marco Arment: iTunes is a "toxic hellstew"

[tkermit]

Why? Because we're skeptical that such an example exists. And when there isn't such an example, the necessity of iTunes' many features, catering to all, is perfectly clear.

It looks like there's finally a real alternative out there – albeit a rather expensive one. But it just might be worth it.

Roon appears to be superior to iTunes in pretty much every way imaginable, including excellent support for classical music metadata. It's everything that iTunes should have been turning into over the years.

 

[navaira]

This looks incredible and I want it yesterday, but $449??????? Dear Apple, can you buy this company and NOT **** up the interface please? (Tie Jony to a chair or something.)

 

[tomekosiowy]

Is Roon alternative?! It is not for any smartphone. Just another mess (in the supported devices way).

 

[manu chao]

Apple Music is highway robbery. We have an established model that works very well. Record companies get their artists broken, they get their songs on the radio, billions of people hear them for free, and then purchase the songs worth archiving. Apple Music is trying to get us to pay $120 a year for what we already have, and worse- to subsidize the record companies for releasing bad music.

I don't know what happened on your end, but I can still buy songs from iTMS in exactly the same way as before. And how is Apple Music highway robbery but Spotify is not if they cost the same and pretty much offer the same? Or do you think it is highway robbery to advertise a $120/year service (as Apple is doing with Apple Music)?

 

[Tech198]

Pretty damning. Let's not forget Tim Cook used the "toxic hellstew" phrase during an Apple keynote in reference to Android. Yes he was quoting someone from ZDNet but he still used it.

http://www.marco.org/2015/07/26/dont-order-the-fish

Seems strange now, this has now bounced back to Apple as "iTunes is a toxic hellstew"

i like the idea though that Apple brings this up about Android, then they do the same thing later on with Apple music.

 

[boltjames]

I don't know what happened on your end, but I can still buy songs from iTMS in exactly the same way as before. And how is Apple Music highway robbery but Spotify is not if they cost the same and pretty much offer the same? Or do you think it is highway robbery to advertise a $120/year service (as Apple is doing with Apple Music)?

Understand that I don't think Spotify is some great breakthru, I think it's awful.

iTunes Radio (Free) + iTunes Downloads ($1) is the same thing as Spotify except you only pay for the songs you love enough to keep. Who needs to pay someone $120 a year for the rest of your life to listen to a random selection of millions of songs? We have that. It's called FM Radio (Free) Or Pandora (Free) or iTunes Radio (Free) or Spotify (Unsubscribed) or YouTube for that matter.

Paying money to listen to what is essentially "radio" is a rip off for today's consumer. And don't get me started on the fragmentation that's starting to poison the iTMS. I like Prince. His new album is getting really favorable reviews. But he's with Tidal. So I can't listen to his new songs on iTunes Radio. I can live with that I guess. Ah, but I can't buy his album in the iTMS. And that's the big problem here. The iTMS was a gift from God, the one place where every song was available and all record companies and artists were happy. Not anymore. iTunes Music and Jimmy Iovine are actually the beginning of the end of the iTMS and that's criminal.

BJ

 

[dotnet]

I like Prince. His new album is getting really favorable reviews. But he's with Tidal. So I can't listen to his new songs on iTunes Radio. I can live with that I guess. Ah, but I can't buy his album in the iTMS. And that's the big problem here.

Not sure that qualifies as a big problem, a mild inconvenience perhaps. You can still buy the album on disc and rip it yourself. The majority of albums I like are not in the iTMS, and that's just as well because I prefer ripping them to ALAC.

 

[dotnet]

Is Roon alternative?! It is not for any smartphone. Just another mess (in the supported devices way).

I haven't found anything persuasive or differentiating about it from the description on their website.

The by-line says: Roon transforms files and streams into a music collection that you can enjoy everywhere.

How is that different from iTunes?

Between users and across devices you have downloads, ripped CDs, and streaming services. Roon weaves it all into a single music experience connected by rich images and a host of information.

Just like iTunes?

Music isn’t files and streams. It’s the work of passionate people who compose, collaborate, and perform live. Stop looking at lists and start experiencing a multi-dimensional world of music.

Blah, blah, spin, spin. Isn't Apple assuring us at every turn how passionate they are about music?

Roon runs on your Windows PC or Mac, and can be controlled from another computer or an Android Tablet or Apple iPad. From earbuds to Hi-Fi DACs to network players, listen in one room or around the house with AirPlay, with more streaming formats to come.

So it doesn't run on iPhones or iPads? Good luck with that.

I'll keep digging, maybe all the good stuff is hidden deeper inside their website. Anything that promises better support for classical music automatically gets my attention.

 

[boltjames]

Not sure that qualifies as a big problem, a mild inconvenience perhaps. You can still buy the album on disc and rip it yourself. The majority of albums I like are not in the iTMS, and that's just as well because I prefer ripping them to ALAC.

I haven't bought a physical CD since 2003 and I'm not going to start now.

If the end result of Jimmy Iovine and the Apple Music scam is that the iTunes Music Store becomes a fragmented mess then Apple Music will go down in the annals of history as Apple's biggest catastrophe since firing Steve Jobs in 1985. The iTunes Music Store is the biggest success Apple has ever had. Greater than the Mac, greater than the iPhone. To see it blown to hell because a bunch of slimy music producers like Jay-Z and Jimmy Iovine are trying to get a bigger piece would be tragic.

Remember why we all hate Cable TV? Because you need to pay a lot of money each month to get content from HBO and Showtime and Cinemax and AMC which are their own networks and delivered by a cable provider. That's what the music industry would love to have. Each record label a "network". iTunes reduced to a "provider". Pay the provider a steep monthly fee. Watch each network offer a weaker product because they get paid the same either way. It will be awful.

BJ

 

[navaira]

While I disagree with boltjames on many crucial points, I really do not understand Apple's desire to turn people away from iTunes Store. You can't post an external link to iTunes Store anymore. If you do, the person who clicks sees the familiar web page with "view in iTunes" button, then when they click the button... off to Apple Music they go. Who the hell thinks this is a good idea? They have a 30% profit margin on every iTunes Store sale. It remains to be determined if they have any profit from Apple Music at all, and Spotify's example doesn't bode too well. If Iovine and Cue managed to convince Cook and the entire board that this is a good idea, they must possess magical powers. Or spiked everyone's coffee.

 

[manu chao]

If the end result of Jimmy Iovine and the Apple Music scam is that the iTunes Music Store becomes a fragmented mess then Apple Music will go down in the annals of history as Apple's biggest catastrophe since firing Steve Jobs in 1985.

So, music streaming is such a horrible deal for customers that so many people flock to that for the first time in a decade or so, meaningful competitors to iTMS appear that can afford to negotiate exclusive deals?

And Apple joining the throng of streaming providers is bad because it brings home the message that streaming is attracting enough users and Dollars to create enough room for other providers that then compete with Apple via binding headline artists.

I don't know, but that sounds to me like shooting the messenger (Apple Music) because you don't like the message (streaming services becoming popular enough to affect offerings in the iTMS). Would Prince not have moved to Tidal if Apple had not entered the streaming market?

 

[manu chao]

Who needs to pay someone $120 a year for the rest of your life to listen to a random selection of millions of songs?

If your usage of streaming services is to listen to their whole catalogue in shuffle mode, well, that's your problem.

Paying money to listen to what is essentially "radio" is a rip off for today's consumer.

Guess what, for years I have been a Spotify subscriber and have bought every song from iTMS that I added to 'my music' in Spotify. I elected to pay for Spotify for two purposes: (1) being able to listen to full-length songs before deciding to purchase them (or not) and (2) being able to access (almost) any song I wanted wherever I was even if I had not bought it and even if didn't intend to buy it but just wanted to play it for somebody (or allow other people to play any song they wanted). There is a third reason that I had not needed to implement yet: (3) Being able to have access to all 'my' songs without needing a device that is large enough to hold them all (currently my 128 GB iPhone can still easily hold all my songs).

Apple Music adds a forth reason (that Spotify and Last.fm didn't really have): (4) Good playlists to (a) get a nice set of music to listen to for an hour or two and to (b) discover new songs and artists.

 

[boltjames]

So, music streaming is such a horrible deal for customers that so many people flock to that for the first time in a decade or so, meaningful competitors to iTMS appear that can afford to negotiate exclusive deals?

And Apple joining the throng of streaming providers is bad because it brings home the message that streaming is attracting enough users and Dollars to create enough room for other providers that then compete with Apple via binding headline artists.

I don't know, but that sounds to me like shooting the messenger (Apple Music) because you don't like the message (streaming services becoming popular enough to affect offerings in the iTMS). Would Prince not have moved to Tidal if Apple had not entered the streaming market?

FREE music streaming is just fine. It's not new. It's a way to break a new artist and get people to want to pay to own a song forever. We used to call it "FM radio". Now we call it iTunes Radio, Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, Twitter, et al. About 95% of all "streaming" is FREE. Very few people actually pay for it. Why should we? What if no good songs are released in October? Why should I pay $12 for a bad product? That's what we hate about HBO, right? When Sopranos and Boardwalk Empire were on, we got our money's worth. Today, waste of money.

PAID music streaming is what is threatening to end what's been going on since Thomas Edison made a wax cylinder and it's not good for consumers. I bought Sargent Pepper on 12" vinyl, remastered vinyl, 8 track, cassette, picture disc, CD, and remastered CD. Enough. I don't need my offspring to pay $10 a month to listen to that disc over and over again simply because the record companies screwed up and finally created a format (MP3/AAC) that is so convenient and so good-sounding that they can't fool people into buying it any other way.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

If your usage of streaming services is to listen to their whole catalogue in shuffle mode, well, that's your problem.

Guess what, for years I have been a Spotify subscriber and have bought every song from iTMS that I added to 'my music' in Spotify. I elected to pay for Spotify for two purposes: (1) being able to listen to full-length songs before deciding to purchase them (or not) and (2) being able to access (almost) any song I wanted wherever I was even if I had not bought it and even if didn't intend to buy it but just wanted to play it for somebody (or allow other people to play any song they wanted). There is a third reason that I had not needed to implement yet: (3) Being able to have access to all 'my' songs without needing a device that is large enough to hold them all (currently my 128 GB iPhone can still easily hold all my songs).

Apple Music adds a forth reason (that Spotify and Last.fm didn't really have): (4) Good playlists to (a) get a nice set of music to listen to for an hour or two and to (b) discover new songs and artists.

Complete garbage.

iTunes Radio plus the iTunes Music Store is the same thing as "Apple Music" but it doesn't make consumers overpay for songs they don't ever want to buy. This hyped feature of "curated playlists" on Apple Radio are merely called "custom stations" on iTunes Radio. iTunes Radio makes you listen to a commercial every hour. Apple Radio costs you $12 a month to remove those commercials. Terrible deal.

I need to understand your use case more, but mine is the one that's terrifying the music industry:

I have 25,000 songs that I own legally, either ripped from CD's or purchased from the iTunes Music Store. I have four kids. They inherited my library. They don't care much about music, they're more into apps. From my vast library of songs and LP's they have all the "legacy" music they could ever want or need. As for new stuff, it's crap and it's everywhere. It's on TV, it's on YouTube, it's on Twitter, it's on Pandora (free), Spotify (free), iTunes Radio (free), it's on good ol' FM Radio (free), so even if there is a new song of value they can listen to it "on demand" whenever they want.

In that context, in my use case and the use cases of millions of iTMS users, there is zero need to pay $120 a year for what you already own (Library) or can easily access on demand (Free streaming). What Apple is doing with it's Apple Music scam is make it look like the paid versions of free services are 'better' and gradually get people away from buying music and renting it. It's awful for consumers, very un-Apple like.

BJ

 

[manu chao]

FREE music streaming is just fine. It's not new. It's a way to break a new artist and get people to want to pay to own a song forever. We used to call it "FM radio". Now we call it iTunes Radio, Pandora, Spotify, YouTube, Twitter, et al. About 95% of all "streaming" is FREE. Very few people actually pay for it. PAID music streaming is what is threatening to end what's been going on since Thomas Edison made a wax cylinder and it's not good for consumers. I bought Sargent Pepper on 12" vinyl, remastered vinyl, 8 track, cassette, picture disc, CD, and remastered CD. Enough. I don't need my offspring to pay $10 a month to listen to that disc over and over again simply because the record companies screwed up and finally created a format (MP3/AAC) that is so convenient and so good-sounding that they can't fool people into buying it any other way.

Fine, so you see no value in paid streaming and by extension you should also see no value in iTunes Match. May I go back and check whether iTunes Match also go you so worked up? Or are you actually upset about something else and take it out on streaming because it coincided with it?

However about 30% of Spotify users do see a value in paid streaming, as will all Apple Music users after the initial trial period and all Tidal users. Thus, unless you find paid streaming so exploitative of those poor souls that get tricked into subscribing to it that you see it as your moral obligation to warn people about the fact that when they stop subscribing, they loose access to the music, I'd ask you to please dial down your sense of being wronged by the mere existence of a product that you happen to have no interest in.

 

[manu chao]

Complete garbage.

iTunes Radio plus the iTunes Music Store is the same thing as "Apple Music" but it doesn't make consumers overpay for songs they don't ever want to buy. This hyped feature of "curated playlists" on Apple Radio are merely called "custom stations" on iTunes Radio. iTunes Radio makes you listen to a commercial every hour. Apple Radio costs you $12 a month to remove those commercials. Terrible deal.

Thank for declaring the value I see in a service as 'complete garbage'. In case you didn't get it, let me relate part of my usage of streaming services to something you might be familiar with: Going to a record store and listening through an album there before deciding whether to buy it or not. With a paid streaming service, I don't have to spend the time to drive half across town to get there, I am not limited to opening hours and most importantly, I can do other things while listening to the album. That alone is worth $10 a month for me.

I guess movie rental (the physical stuff, the online version or the subscription version) is also something you see zero value in as you can get the same for free via TV channels.

As for new stuff, it's crap and it's everywhere.

Let me say what this sounds like to me: A grumpy old main yelling 'Get of my lawn'.

What Apple is doing with it's Apple Music scam is make it look like the paid versions of free services are 'better' and gradually get people away from buying music and renting it. It's awful for consumers, very un-Apple like.

Evil, evil Apple, providing products and services that people actually like. Evil, Evil Apple trying to create a better implementation of a product category and advertising it. I guess every company that says its products are better than that of the competition is a very, very evil entity.

As a person who has paid for a streaming service for a couple of years by now, I have to say: 'Get of my lawn, and stop explaining to me why I am idiot for liking a product or service that you happen to not like.

 

[cjmillsnun]

Please, stop with the automatic OSX argument counter of "show me numbers" already.

If 91% of the computers in this world run Windows and the iPhone is the single most popular smartphone in the world, it stands to reason that 91% of iPhone users run Windows. Could be more, could be less, it'll be in that ballpark.

iTunes for Mac is meaningless. iTunes for Windows is a cash register.

BJ

iTunes on the desktop is meaningless. Think about it. Every iOS device does not need iTunes on the desktop. They can order and consume from the device, and I suspect that is increasingly what is happening.

 

[boltjames]

Fine, so you see no value in paid streaming and by extension you should also see no value in iTunes Match. May I go back and check whether iTunes Match also go you so worked up? Or are you actually upset about something else and take it out on streaming because it coincided with it?

However about 30% of Spotify users do see a value in paid streaming, as will all Apple Music users after the initial trial period and all Tidal users. Thus, unless you find paid streaming so exploitative of those poor souls that get tricked into subscribing to it that you see it as your moral obligation to warn people about the fact that when they stop subscribing, they loose access to the music, I'd ask you to please dial down your sense of being wronged by the mere existence of a product that you happen to have no interest in.

I will do no such thing. There is no reason to.

And just because I have no interest in it doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on me- there are albums I want right now and will want in the future that I will be prohibited from buying because of the greed associated with subscription streaming. Tidal has this exclusive and Neil Young won't stream on Pandora and Taylor Swift is launching her own streaming network, it's going to destroy the iTunes Music Store and that's awful for us all.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

iTunes on the desktop is meaningless. Think about it. Every iOS device does not need iTunes on the desktop. They can order and consume from the device, and I suspect that is increasingly what is happening.

I'm not referring to 'iTunes on the desktop'. The iTunes Music Store is what is in every iOS device and allows you to purchase any song you want for $1. If that goes away and we're forced to pay $12 a month to rent music we're all in trouble.

Be advised that the average iTunes user spends $12 a year on downloads. Apple Music subscription is $120. There isn't 10x the value of the current model and thus the problem.

BJ

 

[cjmillsnun]

I'm not referring to 'iTunes on the desktop'.

Really?? If you looked at the post I had quoted....

iTunes for Mac is meaningless. iTunes for Windows is a cash register.

hmmmmm.

My argument was that iTunes on iOS is the cash cow.

 

[manu chao]

And just because I have no interest in it doesn't mean it doesn't have an impact on me- there are albums I want right now and will want in the future that I will be prohibited from buying because of the greed associated with subscription streaming. Tidal has this exclusive and Neil Young won't stream on Pandora and Taylor Swift is launching her own streaming network, it's going to destroy the iTunes Music Store and that's awful for us all.

Oh, the world is not standing still, very minor inconveniences may arise. Really, how many artists have exclusivity agreements? A dozen, two dozen? And there are a lot of examples of stuff being in the iTMS but not in Apple Music (eg, The Beatles), thus not every streaming exclusivity will affect the iTMS.

And despite your paranoid doomsday scenario, the iTMS will not go away any time soon. Not unless people stop buying stuff from it. There are in the order of 500 million accounts for the iTMS, Apple reported 10 million subscribers to an at the moment still free Apple Music service. You on the one hand claim the vast majority has no interest in paid streaming but still think people will stop buying music to such an extend that it threatens the existence of the iTMS. I'd suggest you get your story straight because right now you are not making much sense.

 

[boltjames]

Really?? If you looked at the post I had quoted....

hmmmmm.

My argument was that iTunes on iOS is the cash cow.

The iTMS is the iTMS no matter where it's engaged. On an iOS device is very popular but Windows has 90% share of the desktop/workstation computer market and is very important, especially for elders who barely know how their devices work let alone this newfangled "streaming" thing.

The comment you're bringing up was in the context of why iTunes desktop is so bloated and can't be divided into smaller parts (ie Library from Radio from Streaming). Apple can't mess with what's on Windows desktops because Windows PC's don't auto-update and there are many different versions.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Oh, the world is not standing still, very minor inconveniences may arise. Really, how many artists have exclusivity agreements? A dozen, two dozen? And there are a lot of examples of stuff being in the iTMS but not in Apple Music (eg, The Beatles), thus not every streaming exclusivity will affect the iTMS.

And despite your paranoid doomsday scenario, the iTMS will not go away any time soon. Not unless people stop buying stuff from it. There are in the order of 500 million accounts for the iTMS, Apple reported 10 million subscribers to an at the moment still free Apple Music service. You on the one hand claim the vast majority has no interest in paid streaming but still think people will stop buying music to such an extend that it threatens the existence of the iTMS. I'd suggest you get your story straight because right now you are not making much sense.

Selling music on the iTunes Music Store is universally accepted by all artists and labels. Tower Records closed, iTunes Music Store opened, that's that. Pick an artist, pick a label, they're on iTunes. $1 a song. Been working for more than a decade.

Streaming music via Pandora/Spotify/Apple is extremely controversial and generally in a wait-and-see mode from artists and labels. The early indications are that they are pissed (Swift) or opting-out completely (Beatles, Young) or are offering incomplete catalogs (Eagles) or are committing exclusivity to a single service (Prince). This is potentially chaos.

Paid streaming is an attempt to force music listeners into the same bad business model as video viewers have been stuck with in Cable TV for decades. If you enjoy overpaying for a crappy product and giving media companies no incentive to improve, then go for it, keep paying for Spotify. For the rest of us, we'll buy what we like after listening to it for a few weeks on free streaming services. So far, the vast majority of people prefer it my way. Because it works and is pro-consumer.

BJ

 

[manu chao]

Streaming music via Pandora/Spotify/Apple is extremely controversial and generally in a wait-and-see mode from artists and labels.

Spotify has been around since 2008. That has given artists a lot of time to wait-and-see.

Paid streaming is an attempt to force music listeners into the same bad business model as video viewers have been stuck with in Cable TV for decades.

Yeah, Spotify has been forcing music listeners to switch to them. Sales in the iTMS have been flat or falling in the last couple of years. Apparently because Spotify & Co. have strong-armed music listeners around the world by some Viking vodoo. And I am the emperor of China, btw. I'll be coming back to you when I want to hear more magical stories.

 

[boltjames]

Spotify has been around since 2008. That has given artists a lot of time to wait-and-see.

Yeah, Spotify has been forcing music listeners to switch to them. Sales in the iTMS have been flat or falling in the last couple of years. Apparently because Spotify & Co. have strong-armed music listeners around the world by some Viking vodoo. And I am the emperor of China, btw. I'll be coming back to you when I want to hear more magical stories.

FREE streaming is hurting iTMS sales.

PAID streaming isn't hurting anything yet, it's fractional, it's financially meaningless, the only impact that those services have is setting a precedent for a new business model that forces people to rent music which is as idiotic and uninformed as your posts.

BJ