I haven't had any songs with explicit lyrics. I would rather it not play the songs at all instead of blanking out parts of the song.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple's iTunes Radio Terms With Record Labels Revealed
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I haven't had any songs with explicit lyrics. I would rather it not play the songs at all instead of blanking out parts of the song.
It's actually built into the default Music App on the iPhone. Your iPhone just treats it like it's playing a playlist.
----------
Has anyone been able to figure out the streaming bitrate of iTunes Radio? Is it just 256 kbps like iTunes Plus music? That's what past music purchases from the cloud stream at (or at least I'm assuming)
----------
This is only true if your music collection includes a significant amount of non-iTunes purchased files. My library is almost entirely iTunes Plus music.
If the artist writes his/her own stuff and self publishes, they get all of that 14 cents. If they get a million listens they make...$140,000 for one song. Even 1 cent times a million is $10,000. Every penny counts.
If the artist writes his/her own stuff and self publishes, they get all of that .14 cents, not 14 cents. If they get a million listens they make....$1,400 for one song. Time to break out the bubbly, but best make it Champale. Every penny counts, but if you're not counting your pennies correctly you could be getting a lot less than you expected.
You are clearly missing the point of internet radio services.
I pay for all the songs I like, but i use services like Pandora to discover new music. Over half the songs I have paid for through iTunes are songs I head and liked on Pandora that I would likely never have been exposed to otherwise.
"Steel music outright"? Listening to iRadio is in no way related to stealing.
And 4 million listeners ("plays") are not that much to with hundreds of millions of active iOS devices.
Not many bands have the possibility to gain this publicity today.
At least internet streaming companies pay the performers something. US Radio stations pay performers absolutely nothing. Only songwriters get any compensation for radio airplay.
The only people consistently making money in the music business are the labels, managers and producers. The actual performers have rarely been able to make a living. It was true 40 years ago and it's still true today.
You caught my carless oversight and yet didn't berate me for it. What's wrong with you? Seriously, you're an uncommonly decent human being.
Which is why Google did it better? Apple should have used their resources and branched out to their library as well. I find that even more adapted to music discovery. Google has an excellent radio service in that. Apple could have tiered off plans no issue. iTunes match plus or something. I see it happening for sure.
----------
Google doesn't use just an on-demand service. That's the point I was making. Apple can, and very likely will, do the same thing later. Why they didn't now I don't know. People do like to buy music but a lot more don't hence the popularity of streaming apps. Ads have been a number one complaint. Apple is not doing enough to entice people in my opinion. Its going to sell like hotcakes because its Apple but its very dry. And I never said anything about people needing to switch. They'll go get what they want regardless of integration or not. Its choice based. A lot of people steal music too. Which is another reason to why Apple should have went with on-demand too. Strip the labels off the two services and do the Pepsi challenge with consumers and they'll pick one that gives them the most. I think Google is doing that right now. I know Apple will catch up later. Google even uses a iTunes Match like feature, well the cloud storage bit at a least. They really aren't different. Google just provided more that's all
lol bands have never made real money from their CDs, concerts have always been the moneymakers for the artist, CDs $ are for the companies. THis new model doesn't hurt them at all. At the contrary they could get a few extra bucks, unless people prefer using the service than going to concerts the artist wont really be affected. Bands are always whining to get more money, hell who wouldn't
Not at all.
The purpose of this streaming service is to introduce people to new music they otherwise wouldn't get exposed to, just like conventional radio. They're seeking to raise click-through sales on the iTunes music store. Even if this service ran in the red (which it won't), it would still be a loss leader from generated sales, so long as purchasing integration is easy.
People sure are paying like crazy for Google's service. gMusic has hit top 15 paid already and that's an incomplete way to access the service. I think Apple has missed the boat by not doing an on-demand service. Purchasing has always been easy as well. Even Pandora took me to iTunes.
My $20 dollars isn't enough to sustain Google Play Music All Access or Spotify? Because that's essentially what I just described. BTW I'm paying for both of those services right now and one carries a monthly fee as low as $7.99.
Radio isn't doing so hot from what I'm hearing, hell many popular stations are struggling to keep the lights on. I work very closely with the music industry, I take label execs at their word. Maybe things are better in the UK. What you call evolving I call the death of the old and the ushering in of the new... Spotify. What you want, when you want it.
Yes that is what I am saying and no you are wrong about all the other services. You want a something that will allow every song / album ever made to be able to be streamed 24/7 for as long as little or you like with no restrictions.
NONE of the services offer that, all of them have a finite catalogue and / or restrictions of some kind. Then you need to find a mobile phone provider that offers unlimited internet. Currently only Three who I am with offer it, but their signal sucks...
Simple. Internet bandwidth. Tell the majority of ISPs to be less stingy with it then I can buy a 16GB iOS device. Until that day happens, it's 64GB for me all the way.
----------
Nope, it just means Apple changed their margins on certain hardware to allow for any cost to upkeep iRadio.
Your home bandwidth is really that awful? I don't exactly have Google Fiber or anything super fancy but I seem to do all alright with 3.0 MB/s down.
Yes it really is that bad. Not all of us have 3MB/s down. Not every country has fast internet. You need to remember that. And before anyone says "oh but 3MB/s is not fast", it is fast compared to what many people get here. Most people with fast internet fail to have this understanding.
A bands' manager should cover most of that. I don't need a record label to help me when I move. Or to "look after" my money. Or to reserve hotels. And I'm not trivializing these duties, small bands do this on their own ALL THE TIME.
Imagine having Google Fiber internet. It's 125 MB/s. My brain cannot even fathom that speed. lol
I never said every album ever made but to be honest it wouldn't matter if I did. I can stream any song available on Spotify as long as I want without interruptions and download it to my phone and play it without an internet connection for $10 dollars a month. I cannot do that on iTunes Radio. I can also do that on Google Play Music All Access (what a terrible name for a service) AND I get the Radio functionality of Pandora or iTunes Radio and I'm getting that for 7.99 a month.
Apple is giving you Pandora with a more robust skipping system and if you're offline and want to take that music with you their response is "buy the song on iTunes!". Not good enough. They need to stop trying to protect their old revenue stream and get with the times.
When you move?
Do you move with several truckloads to a different continent?
Play in front of 50.000 people?
Small bands don't lose millions of dollars if they don't do it right.