Well, That Was Quick - Bored Already, Not Going To Keep Apple Music

[boltjames]

That's just weird and not something 95% of the people in their 40s and 50s would agree with.

Seriously?

We're talking about music enthusiasts here, not casual listeners. People who love music and had vast LP and 45 collections, quickly built up large CD collections, go to concerts, wait on line at Tower Records in 1994 waiting for the new U2 release, you know the type.

Those people all have all the back catalog of music they need in iTunes right now. The last 20 years, music being plentiful online, everyone ripping their CD collections, everyone trading USB drives with hundreds of songs on them, if they had a passing interest in Jimi Hendrix, trust me, they own Jimi Hendrix right now. It's been 20 years. Plenty of time for enthusiasts to build a strong library.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

I love that the primary crux of your argument is theft. Jesus Christ.

We can't turn back the hands of time. Do you know a single music enthusiast back in the 90s and early 00s that didn't know a friend of a friend who had a 5 GB USB drive with a boatload of MP3's on it? Music Match, CD burners, and high speed internet all became available at the same time. Between the launch of Napster in 1999 and the launch of the iTunes Music Store in 2003 it was the wild west online.

Those are the people who today would be most interested in Apple Music. And they aren't. Because they have what they need. As for the kids of today, well, they have much more than Cheryl Ladd and a Barry Manilow song to keep them warm on a Friday night. If I had Instagram in 1978 I'd have never learned who Styx was. I'd be entertained in a very different manner.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

Literally everything you wrote above is 100% wrong.

There are 41 million people with paid streaming subscriptions.

There are 800 million iTunes accounts.

Do the math.

Read:

http://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php

BJ

 

[boltjames]

It is silly arguing the economics of music with a guy who keeps touting his 25k music library of which he only paid for a small fraction of the music in it.

Who said that?

I am talking about the perspective of a typical 40 or 50 year old today, not myself. Most people that age with large iTunes libraries didn't pay for their music. I certainly did.

BJ

 

[Maybe rkymark91]

With the MacBook and the iPhone Apple created new markets. With Apple Music, they are mimicking one.

I know they had to compete with Spotify, avoid the threat of some mythical streaming trend, but did they have to release something so pedestrian?

BJ

They went into the tablet market, which wasn't a new market, so what?

It's not mythical, it's proven. It's increasing 50% year on year...

pedestrian? Again, that's personal opinon, not fact. Some people saying going into the iPhone market was pedestrian.

[Post Note: "Free Services" is a term used so that I don't have to keep typing Pandora, iTunes Radio, FM Radio, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, artists websites, et al over and over again. BJ]

Purchase Cost: Since the average iTunes user spends only $12 a year on music and Apple Music's cost of entry is a commitment for $120 a year in perpetuity, this is a clear win for iTunes Downloads. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get that one can download 10,000 songs in a weekend on Apple Music for $12 but you can't look at it that way. The 10,000 songs go =poof= if you stop paying $120 a year.

Those free services you listed, pretty much all of them utilise adverts, so really, they're not free. Some have limited skips, meaning you have to listen to stuff you don't want to either.

$12 a year has been disproven multiple times, by multiple people. Give that up. It's already been proven that digital sales are dropping, plus you're arguing about universal, when that figure is not universal.

I no longer respond to that poster as he has nothing to offer but personal attacks.

See post above regarding this argument; FREE streaming is on fire. Paid streaming is a yawn. iTunes Radio is free streaming and it's excellent. Apple Music is iTunes Radio + Unlimited Downloads. Some of us don't need the Unlimited Downloads.

My what-ifs are more likely than your what-ifs. A house fire burns my music collection? That's what cloud storage is for, that's what the work computer is for, I have multiple executions of my 25,000 song library. Same for my family photos and family videos. It's not going to perish.

BJ

You made a personal attack on him, accusing him of being drunk, so you're a hypocrite there. You've also made personal attacks on others, saying that everyone of certain ages have a proclivity to illegal downloading. Additionally, you promoted distracted driving, which is illegal.

Also, you ignored alot of valid counters to your outlandish claims, again showing you cannot accept being wrong.

Paid streaming doubled 50%, so I would say it's on fire too. iTunes Radio is not free worldwide, which is where your argument fails, additionally, in the US, you get adverts on iTunes Radio free, Spotify free, etc. Adverts means it's not free. You have limited skips on free, which means you have to listen to stuff you do not wish to.

Yes, SOME of us don't need unlimited downloads, others do, therefore you've just killed your own argument. Again.

My what-ifs are just as likely, if not moreso than yours. House fires can burn your collection easily enough, unless you keep it in a fireproof safe now? As for your work computer, I'm sure that's breaching some company policy. Your cloud storage is just as liable to disappear as streaming, so again, you're contradicting yourself.

I have 2 free SiriusXM Radio subscriptions in my cars and they provide as much new music in the genres I frequent as Apple Music or Spotify do. Commercial free, sometimes hosted, sometimes not. If I hear a song I like, I go to iTunes and download it. Easy peasy.

On the weekends, I fire up iTunes Radio on my notebook and connect via wi-fi to Apple TV and sets of wireless speakers throughout the house. Again, if I hear a song I like I click two buttons and I've bought it for a buck.

One does not need to download 12 albums a month to be "in touch with the music scene". In fact, that's limiting. With only 12 songs on a disc and only 3 worthwhile, I can argue very effectively that someone like that is only really being exposed to 36 decent songs in a month whereas I'm being exposed to 360.

Music is made to be listened to; it's not a research project. Put on Pandora, type in a song title, let the day unfold, let your ears enjoy the familiar and the new, no real need to spend money on any of this unless you travel by plane extensively or have a tight dataplan.

BJ

Those 'free' SiriusXM radio subscriptions are not free, they're a hidden cost as part of your car.... If you think otherwise, you're deluded......

Plus, you really go to so much effort to try and sound cool, but you sound just like the old men that try and sound cool, it's dripping with fakeness.....

I think all the new sounds and new chords have been discovered and all that's left is sampling, rehash, ripoff, and cute girls with perky breasts.

BJ

Not only are you one of the stereotypical old men that claim nothing is good anymore, you're also a pervert? Got you.

Well if I'm wrong, and I may be, then the alternative is even worse:

If people don't purchase music and they don't have huge libraries built since 1996, well, there's your iPhone app Instagram generation and they aren't that into music and using a free service like Pandora, iHeart Radio, and iTunes Radio is sufficient for them, no need to spend a dime.

I'm the guy who was the King Of The Cassette Mixtape in 1982, King Of The Burned MP3 CD in 2000, and King Of The Playlist in 2010. If BJ were taking a long drive with the college girlfriend, he put a ton of thought into the cassette that was playing the whole trip. If BJ was hosting a party, he put a lot of thought into the music that would be playing for the duration of the event. Each track hand-picked, the running order essential, the pacing of fast/slow tracks critical, how each song related to the one before it. You remember.

Well, today I'm the guy that turns on iTunes Radio, picks a station that reflects the mood, and moves on to getting the rib eye's ready. It does a better job than any of us could. iTunes Radio knows what we like, knows what the masses like, knows what secondary and deep tracks have decent playcounts, knows what bands are emerging, it's like having a music butler in your home catering to your every whim. Sounds like I'm not the only one who feels it's enough.

BJ

Mr Egomania here. He speaks for everyone in the world, wow. Also, another post trying to seem cool, but reeks of desperation.

So, no you're saying that anyone that's not a 1%er with a massive music library, is an iPhone generation? That makes my parents, my boss, my gran one of the iPhone generation?!

Also, you're making offensive stereotypical comments about 'the iPhone generation'.

Seriously?

We're talking about music enthusiasts here, not casual listeners. People who love music and had vast LP and 45 collections, quickly built up large CD collections, go to concerts, wait on line at Tower Records in 1994 waiting for the new U2 release, you know the type.

Those people all have all the back catalog of music they need in iTunes right now. The last 20 years, music being plentiful online, everyone ripping their CD collections, everyone trading USB drives with hundreds of songs on them, if they had a passing interest in Jimi Hendrix, trust me, they own Jimi Hendrix right now. It's been 20 years. Plenty of time for enthusiasts to build a strong library.

BJ

music enthusiasts fall into the 1% of all users, make your mind up, are you arguing for the masses, or the 1%er's, you keep contradicting yourself.

Also, I'm sure alot of music enthusiasts would be offended that you're saying they all would stoop to illegality to obtain music. It's simply not true.

We can't turn back the hands of time. Do you know a single music enthusiast back in the 90s and early 00s that didn't know a friend of a friend who had a 5 GB USB drive with a boatload of MP3's on it? Music Match, CD burners, and high speed internet all became available at the same time. Between the launch of Napster in 1999 and the launch of the iTunes Music Store in 2003 it was the wild west online.

Those are the people who today would be most interested in Apple Music. And they aren't. Because they have what they need. As for the kids of today, well, they have much more than Cheryl Ladd and a Barry Manilow song to keep them warm on a Friday night. If I had Instagram in 1978 I'd have never learned who Styx was. I'd be entertained in a very different manner.

BJ

You act like the entire world was doing this, it wasn't. Just because your circle of friends might have done it, does not make it universal. I'm not saying it was a low number, I know people that did it, but also know a lot of people that didn't. Alot of people were not computer literate enough to do it, alot just didn't want to, as it was illegal.

I have access to instagram, as do many people I know, but we are not so fickle that we ignore music. You're acting like anyone younger today is distracted by shiny things, which just proves how out of touch you are!!

All your posts are sweeping, absurd generalisations, or your own experience/mindset being passed of as factual information.

There are 41 million people with paid streaming subscriptions.

There are 800 million iTunes accounts.

Do the math.

Read:

http://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php

BJ

800 Million accounts, of which you have no idea how many are active, how many are multiple accounts for 1 person, how many are used for children, of how many are actually used to buy music, so really, that's not a real number for this argument.

Streaming usage is increasing 50% year on year... so you do the math....

Who said that?

I am talking about the perspective of a typical 40 or 50 year old today, not myself. Most people that age with large iTunes libraries didn't pay for their music. I certainly did.

BJ

You said it....

Most people? Again, made up facts.

From what you post, you really have no idea what the typical 40/50 year old today's persepective is. You're projecting yourself as one of these people. You even posted that you took music from friends, napster, etc, now you're contradicting yourself?

 

[johngordon]

I think all the new sounds and new chords have been discovered and all that's left is sampling, rehash, ripoff, and cute girls with perky breasts.

BJ

That's it? Is this coming from someone interested in music still, because it sounds like it's coming from the cliched grumpy old Dad bemoaning the fact that music isn't as good as it was back in the day.

But don't forget Tame Impala - have they invented some great new genre of music on their new album to pique your interest?

 

[johngordon]

We can't turn back the hands of time. Do you know a single music enthusiast back in the 90s and early 00s that didn't know a friend of a friend who had a 5 GB USB drive with a boatload of MP3's on it? Music Match, CD burners, and high speed internet all became available at the same time. Between the launch of Napster in 1999 and the launch of the iTunes Music Store in 2003 it was the wild west online.

Those are the people who today would be most interested in Apple Music. And they aren't. Because they have what they need. As for the kids of today, well, they have much more than Cheryl Ladd and a Barry Manilow song to keep them warm on a Friday night. If I had Instagram in 1978 I'd have never learned who Styx was. I'd be entertained in a very different manner.

BJ

So everyone downloaded a ton of music.

No music enthusiast who downloaded a ton of music could possibly have discovered any more music they liked, or expanded their music tastes, since 2003.

And no-one who was that into music up until 2003 has any interest in any new music since 2003.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

 

[johngordon]

With the MacBook and the iPhone Apple created new markets. With Apple Music, they are mimicking one.

I know they had to compete with Spotify, avoid the threat of some mythical streaming trend, but did they have to release something so pedestrian?

BJ

The MacBook was the first laptop and the iPhone was the first mobile phone?

News to me!

I thought someone else had posted about the actual upward trend in streaming, including paid subscribers?

News to you!

You've posted your strawman about AM not being a groundbreaking revolutionary product before - so what?

What do you want or expect it do? Other than be cheaper.

But for what its worth I think Apple incorporating actual broadcast radio as part of the overall package showed a vision that none of the other streaming providers had.

Doing as much human curation as possible is a big plus.

As is having it be so seamless with an existing library.

Is it a completely new thing dreamt up by Apple? Clearly not.

Is it likely to be, for many, the best (or at least preferred) streaming service? Very possibly.

Which are things you could say about most of Apple's products.

 

[johngordon]

[Post Note: "Free Services" is a term used so that I don't have to keep typing Pandora, iTunes Radio, FM Radio, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook, artists websites, et al over and over again. BJ]

No, I don't see that. Here's what I see:

Exposure To New Music: Both Apple Music and Free Services offer tons of this. While I'd call this a tie, there are key artists missing from Apple Music and that's a very big negative.

Ease Of Purchase: Both Apple Music and iTunes Radio put users 2-clicks away from downloading a song into a personal Library. Dead even. Another tie.

Purchase Cost: Since the average iTunes user spends only $12 a year on music and Apple Music's cost of entry is a commitment for $120 a year in perpetuity, this is a clear win for iTunes Downloads. Yeah, yeah, yeah, I get that one can download 10,000 songs in a weekend on Apple Music for $12 but you can't look at it that way. The 10,000 songs go =poof= if you stop paying $120 a year.

Complete Library: Apple Music looks like the clear winner here, but dig deeper and the ugly underbelly of the service exposes itself. Key artists like the Beatles, Prince, Neil Young, and others aren't participating. Competitors like Tidal and Spotify are locking up exclusive LP launches and exclusive artists. Like Netflix, once you play around and realize that only 5 of Tom Hanks' movies are available and Forrest Gump, Philadelphia, and Sleepless In Seattle aren't among them, things go south quickly. For now, Apple Music wins but in the future this may swing to iTMS + iTunes Radio. Stay tuned.

BJ

Sure - but numerous times in this discussion you equated streaming with radio which, you said, was free.

You were clearly arguing that whatever was available from a streaming service was already available for free.

If it now turns out that you were also including buying stuff from ITMS then clearly that is not free.

Exposure to new music...

Interesting that you highlight something you see as a negative in Apple Music, but choose not to highlight any advantages of AM, or disadvantages of radio.

You have talked about missing artists quite a lot - but would you like to express the number of missing artists as a % of all artists? Would it be something like 0.00001%?

Ease of purchase...

Not that simple - it clearly depends on an individuals circumstances. In most cases it won't be a tie, because one or the other will work out as the cheaper option for most people.

Purchase cost...

Again, it depends on the individual, not on what you personally think.

You keep using deliberately misleading language, like downloading 10,000 songs in a weekend. For a lot of people it won't be about that, but will simply being able to listen to pretty much anything you want, whenever you want. Including new music which is coming out all the time.

You have said many times that people only buy music they love. That is likely true. But I think for a lot of people "the music they would like to listen to" is far greater than "the music they would like to buy". Streaming enables people to listen to everything they would like to without having to buy it, or hope it happens to be played on the radio.

People are perfectly aware of losing access to their library of subscribed music if they stop subscribing, but won't have a problem with that. As an example, if someone subscribes to AM for five years, and listens to 30 albums a year, and then stops subscribing, they could just buy the 30 albums they decided they really loved.

Total cost - $900

Compared to if they had bought all 150 albums at $10 each.

Total cost - $1500

A big part of your whole argument bizarrely assumes that people are being forced to subscribe, and don't still have the option to buy if they want to.

And yes - you could lose your library if something unfortunate happens.

I know you say it couldn't happen to you, but that's what they said about Titanic, the Challenger and a 1001 other things I'm sure.

 

[johngordon]

Apple Music is two different services for the purpose of this segment of the conversation, stop blending them together and playing semantics:

1. "Discovery of new music". Custom Playlists, New, and For You are all paid Apple Music versions of iTunes Radio which does just as good a job with Custom Stations, New Music Stations, and Stock Stations.

2. "Downloading of music". It costs $120 a year to rent in Apple Music. It costs whatever a consumer wishes to pay to purchase songs in the iTMS.

Get it?

Again, I completely disagree that differentiating between "free radio" and "buying stuff you hear on the radio" is semantics. Its clearly a fundamental difference between "free" and "not free".

Splitting AM out into two different services so that you can claim there are free alternatives to AM is simply smoke and mirrors.

Its like arguing that there are free alternatives to the cinema by splitting "The Cinema" into two services:

1. Discovery of new films via the trailers.

2. Watching the main feature.

ie utterly ridiculous.

No, don't be ridiculous. Free movies on TV are edited and full of commercials. People spend more on premium movie channels like HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, etc. each year than go to the cinema so there's that.

BJ

Free music on the radio is edited (not full albums), full of commercials, and lack the ability to listen to what you want when you want.

 

[Shirasaki]

After complete reading over 70 posts in this thread, I still cannot have a clear picture of what members are discussing.

For me, AM is simply never be my choice due to following reasons:
1. AM is NOT compatible with Japanese songs, and artists. I don't know when they will land in Japan but I would not hold my breath.
2. AM is NOT a worldwide service. I am sure China has already been excluded to various services other members are discussing.
3. AM requires frequent Internet connection, but my connection condition is not so good to support, even uninterrupted Beats 1 playing.
4. AM will simply lock my Apple ID in one region for at least a month. I need to regularly update apps only available in other stores, and purchase contents only available on other stores.

So the conclusion is simple: AM is not suitable for ME.

 

[johngordon]

There are 41 million people with paid streaming subscriptions.

There are 800 million iTunes accounts.

Do the math.

Read:

http://www.ifpi.org/facts-and-stats.php

BJ

It says:

"The music business continues to expand into new markets and create new business models, attracting more users to digital music services and bringing artists to a wider global audience.

In 2014, the industry’s global digital revenues increased by 6.9 per cent to US$6.85 billion. For the first time, the industry derived the same proportion of revenues from digital channels (46%) as physical format sales (46%)."

Kudos for posting a link which seems to say the opposite of what you have been trying to say.

 

[boltjames]

That's it? Is this coming from someone interested in music still, because it sounds like it's coming from the cliched grumpy old Dad bemoaning the fact that music isn't as good as it was back in the day.

But don't forget Tame Impala - have they invented some great new genre of music on their new album to pique your interest?

Today's music is boring. Most songs that one thinks are really good are actually just rehashes of prior hits. "Feel My Face" is roaring up the charts, I can name 5 Michael Jackson and Justin Timberlake songs that are essentially the same. Just because these Jedi Mind Tricks work on today's youth doesn't mean I need to buy the tenth iteration of "Billy Jean". People with large iTunes collections know what's what, and we have 100 other songs to fill that "upbeat pop disco" niche when the moment strikes.

After two days, Tame Impala's new album disappoints. It's okay, I appreciate the effort to reduce guitars and add synth, but it lacks that one 'wow' song, it's more like the secondary tracks on their prior LP.

BJ

 

[Maybe rkymark91]

Today's music is boring.

Subjective personal opinion. Not fact.

People with large iTunes collections know what's what, and we have 100 other songs to fill that "upbeat pop disco" niche when the moment strikes.

The 1%ers where Apple Music is not relevant.

 

[boltjames]

So everyone downloaded a ton of music.

No music enthusiast who downloaded a ton of music could possibly have discovered any more music they liked, or expanded their music tastes, since 2003.

And no-one who was that into music up until 2003 has any interest in any new music since 2003.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

First it's semantics and now it's logic traps? Stop already.

What I'm saying is that between the personal ripping of 1000s of CD's, then the gluttony of the Napster years, and the invention of the iTunes Music Store, most people over the age of 35 have all the "classic back catalog" they'll ever need.

There was some terrific music that emerged from 2003 to 2015. Problem for Apple Music is, we already own it. And we own the back catalog. And we can get "Connect" from Twitter. And we can get New and For You from iTunes Radio. If you're under 35, have a great time with Apple Music and rent your heart out. For the rest of us, thanks but no thanks. Free trial expires, it's bye-bye.

BJ

 

[boltjames]

The MacBook was the first laptop and the iPhone was the first mobile phone?

News to me!

I thought someone else had posted about the actual upward trend in streaming, including paid subscribers?

News to you!

You've posted your strawman about AM not being a groundbreaking revolutionary product before - so what?

What do you want or expect it do? Other than be cheaper.

But for what its worth I think Apple incorporating actual broadcast radio as part of the overall package showed a vision that none of the other streaming providers had.

Doing as much human curation as possible is a big plus.

As is having it be so seamless with an existing library.

Is it a completely new thing dreamt up by Apple? Clearly not.

Is it likely to be, for many, the best (or at least preferred) streaming service? Very possibly.

Which are things you could say about most of Apple's products.

If Apple is worried about 3% of the music business and need to drop a weak product like this, I can't tell them to stop.

As others have said, this looks to be a platform for young people to encourage them to pay for something that is now free to them. Good luck with that.

BJ

 

[johngordon]

Today's music is boring.

What? All of it? Despite your protestations, you do sound a lot like that cliche you are so keen to avoid.

It is utterly ridiculous to make such a sweeping generalisation , and makes it increasingly difficult to take you seriously.

I still hear plenty of music that I think is great.

Most songs that one thinks are really good are actually just rehashes of prior hits. "Feel My Face" is roaring up the charts, I can name 5 Michael Jackson and Justin Timberlake songs that are essentially the same. Just because these Jedi Mind Tricks work on today's youth doesn't mean I need to buy the tenth iteration of "Billy Jean". People with large iTunes collections know what's what, and we have 100 other songs to fill that "upbeat pop disco" niche when the moment strikes.

After two days, Tame Impala's new album disappoints. It's okay, I appreciate the effort to reduce guitars and add synth, but it lacks that one 'wow' song, it's more like the secondary tracks on their prior LP.

BJ

It might be Jedi mind tricks, or it might just be that people have a different taste to you, or maybe even are listening to different music.

You're back to the science part - most people don't care that much even if a song isn't completely original, or they already have some other songs with the same BPM. They just care that they think its a great tune. I just heard the new Chvrches track today. I don't suppose its remotely original in terms of genre and sound - but its a cracking good tune.

Are you saying that you "know what's what", but I don't by the way? How rude![/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

 

[johngordon]

If Apple is worried about 3% of the music business and need to drop a weak product like this, I can't tell them to stop.

As others have said, this looks to be a platform for young people to encourage them to pay for something that is now free to them. Good luck with that.

BJ

So you're ignoring the whole thing about the Macbook and iPhone not being the first laptop or mobile phone?

It might look like that to you, but actually it looks a lot more like a product that allows people with a healthy interest in music to consume a lot more music than they could by buying it.

When you say free, what are you referring to today? Radio (in which case AM is a lot more than radio), or radio + ITMS (in which case it isn't free).

If people do only spend $12 a year on music, they almost certainly won't be about to sign up for a $120 a year music service. So I'm sure they appreciate your concern on their behalf, but you can probably sleep easy on the one.

And if my 78 year old Mum gets brainwashed by those scammers at Apple and signs up for AM, I'll let you know, and eat my hat.

 

[johngordon]

First it's semantics and now it's logic traps? Stop already.

What I'm saying is that between the personal ripping of 1000s of CD's, then the gluttony of the Napster years, and the invention of the iTunes Music Store, most people over the age of 35 have all the "classic back catalog" they'll ever need.

There was some terrific music that emerged from 2003 to 2015. Problem for Apple Music is, we already own it. And we own the back catalog. And we can get "Connect" from Twitter. And we can get New and For You from iTunes Radio. If you're under 35, have a great time with Apple Music and rent your heart out. For the rest of us, thanks but no thanks. Free trial expires, it's bye-bye.

BJ

Again, the difference between radio (free) and radio + ITMS (not free) was not semantics.

It was the fundamental difference between "free" and "not free".

That you are still arguing otherwise on this point which_could_not_be_more_clear, I have no idea.

Again, who is this mythical we you presume to speak for?

I'm sure many people will still be discovering music they hadn't heard, or would be interested in filling in gaps, what with having a finite budget to spend on music and all.

Its not about age - its about whether or not you are still interested enough in new music.

It strikes me that a lot of this is just you trying to justify your own declining interest in music, perhaps you don't want to see yourself as that "music isn't as good as it was in my day" cliche.

 

[Maybe rkymark91]

First it's semantics and now it's logic traps? Stop already.

What I'm saying is that between the personal ripping of 1000s of CD's, then the gluttony of the Napster years, and the invention of the iTunes Music Store, most people over the age of 35 have all the "classic back catalog" they'll ever need.

There was some terrific music that emerged from 2003 to 2015. Problem for Apple Music is, we already own it. And we own the back catalog. And we can get "Connect" from Twitter. And we can get New and For You from iTunes Radio. If you're under 35, have a great time with Apple Music and rent your heart out. For the rest of us, thanks but no thanks. Free trial expires, it's bye-bye.

BJ

Again with made up facts?

- What's your source for the 'most people over 35 have the back catalogue they need'?!

- You're claiming to speak for everyone over 35?! Who made you the spokesperson? Or is it a dictatorship?

If Apple is worried about 3% of the music business and need to drop a weak product like this, I can't tell them to stop.

As others have said, this looks to be a platform for young people to encourage them to pay for something that is now free to them. Good luck with that.

BJ

So, you're ignoring that paid streaming for Spotify alone, doubled in the last year? That's actual fact there. It proves you totally wrong. You repeatedly have ignored this.

It seems you ignore anything that proves your points wrong. You cannot complain that people don't make proper arguments on here, then ignore them when they do. It's hypocritical immaturity.

 

[boltjames]

Again, I completely disagree that differentiating between "free radio" and "buying stuff you hear on the radio" is semantics. Its clearly a fundamental difference between "free" and "not free".

Splitting AM out into two different services so that you can claim there are free alternatives to AM is simply smoke and mirrors.

Its like arguing that there are free alternatives to the cinema by splitting "The Cinema" into two services:

1. Discovery of new films via the trailers.

2. Watching the main feature.

ie utterly ridiculous.

This is so ludicrous I don't even know where to begin. Smoke and mirrors? Go through each of these and tell me where I'm wrong:

Apple Music New = iTunes Radio New Releases Channels

Apple Music For You = iTunes Radio Custom Channels

Apple Music Radio = iTunes Radio

Apple Music Connect = Twitter

Apple Music Deep Catalog (Rental) = iTunes Music Store (Owned)

The only difference between Apple Music and iTunes Radio + iTunes Music Store is the price. One is an all-you-can-eat buffet, the other is a-la-carte sit-down service. You can hear the new release from Maroon 5 on both, you can find Side 2 Track 4 of the worst album that David Bowie released on both, there is no difference but what it costs to do those things.

BJ

 

[johngordon]

The main issue with a big part of your argument is that you have repeatedly said that everything offered by AM is available for free elsewhere.

But it turned out that wasn't the case at all.

Unless you can download stuff to your library and listen to it when you want, in the order you want, without ads, then now - those components of AM do not = the iTunes radio equivalents.

People can't get everything they can get from AM free from the radio, if it turns out that actually have to buy the music.

The simple fact is this:

If you don't listen to much music, AM isn't for you.

If you listen to even a modest amount of music, AM may well be for you.

I get that you don't think its for you.

I get that it may well not be for a lot of people.

I don't get your insistence that it can't be for anyone except suckers fished in by Apple's fiendish plan.

 

[boltjames]

Free music on the radio is edited (not full albums), full of commercials, and lack the ability to listen to what you want when you want.

Just stop with the loopholes already. Yeah, FM radio has commercials and is completely random. No sh-t.

Want unedited music without commercials and listen to what you want when you want it? Go to YouTube. Search for "Nevermind" by Nirvana. Click on the link that says "full album". Stream it via Wi-Fi to Apple TV or wireless speakers or headphones. Want a specific song? Go to YouTube. Search for "Bleach". Same thing.

Want something more convenient? Use Pandora or iTunes Radio, live with their tiny 10 second commercials every hour, done.

BJ

 

[johngordon]

Just stop with the loopholes already. Yeah, FM radio has commercials and is completely random. No sh-t.

Want unedited music without commercials and listen to what you want when you want it? Go to YouTube. Search for "Nevermind" by Nirvana. Click on the link that says "full album". Stream it via Wi-Fi to Apple TV or wireless speakers or headphones. Want a specific song? Go to YouTube. Search for "Bleach". Same thing.

Want something more convenient? Use Pandora or iTunes Radio, live with their tiny 10 second commercials every hour, done.

BJ

Why are you getting so spiky? They're not loopholes - they are fundamental differences.

Radio - commercials + random tracks
AM - download entire albums to your library and listen to them when you want, uninterrupted

That is a massive difference!

Maybe its just me, but I like the idea of browsing my music library rather than searching for stuff on You Tube overtime I want to listen to something.

I suppose I could add a load of bookmarks, but it would become quite impractical quite quickly. And wouldn't be a great experience when I'm out and about with my phone.

I'm not about to move to the US to use Pandora.

And we don't get iTunes Radio here either - but even then I didn't think you can listen to what you want when you want, in the order you want.

 

[boltjames]

It says:

"The music business continues to expand into new markets and create new business models, attracting more users to digital music services and bringing artists to a wider global audience.

In 2014, the industry’s global digital revenues increased by 6.9 per cent to US$6.85 billion. For the first time, the industry derived the same proportion of revenues from digital channels (46%) as physical format sales (46%)."

Kudos for posting a link which seems to say the opposite of what you have been trying to say.

You seem to think that "physical format" means "downloaded AAC tracks" and that "digital revenues" mean "streaming". LOL. Read:

Physical format sales
The industry is becoming less reliant on income from physical format sales, with the sector’s share of industry revenues declining from 60 per cent in 2011 to 46 per cent in 2014.Despite the continued transition to digital, physical music sales are still an important revenue source through gifting and deluxe box sets and in some key territories, such as Germany and France, account for more than half of the market.

BJ