No headphone socket in the next iPhone. No DVD drive for iMac (like I buy an all-in-one to have cables and devices all over my desk), subscription model being crammed down our throats. My time in the ecosystem looks to be short-lived if these rumors are true. Apple really changed my opinion about the company for the better in the recent past, but now a more open, albeit less stable, less slick, less refined environment is gaining some appeal again.
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 Aiming to End iTunes Music Downloads in Two Years [Update: Apple Says 'Not True']
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I haven't been buying music from Apple for a while anyway - I've generally bought it on Amazon and then loaded it into iTunes.
For streaming I use Pandora - half the price, but seemingly with a better variety in the genres I like to listen to (mainly stuff like jazz, blues, and swing).
For streaming I use Pandora - half the price, but seemingly with a better variety in the genres I like to listen to (mainly stuff like jazz, blues, and swing).
I say NO to this idea. I want to own my music. I want actual music files on my HDD. You own nothing if you subscribe to Apple Music, all you're paying for is access to the music, but you don't own anything. That's pure profit for Apple and the music artists.
I currently pay for Apple Music, but for me it's to listen to music I like but not enough to own and to hear new music from artists I've never heard before. The artist I REALLY like, I want to own their music so if I do decide to not subscribe, I still have the music.
This is about as much BS as removing the 3.5mm headphone jack.
I currently pay for Apple Music, but for me it's to listen to music I like but not enough to own and to hear new music from artists I've never heard before. The artist I REALLY like, I want to own their music so if I do decide to not subscribe, I still have the music.
This is about as much BS as removing the 3.5mm headphone jack.
It's hard to get a handle on exactly what artists or labels want. I mean in the days of yore, exemplified in the movie That Thing You Do! the bees knees was to get played on the radio... to promote and sell the latest album. These days artists like Taylor Swift get all in a huff if today's virtual radio, i.e., streaming sites play songs w/ no charge to listeners. But then they have their videos available at n/c on YouTube and Vevo.
Then move over to Amazon which offers a free MP3 version of an album (stored on Amazon or downloadable) when you buy the CD version. Often the CD version is the same or even $1 less than the stand-alone MP3 version, which, yes, makes no sense since Amazon has to ship that CD out, the CD cost $, the case cost money, the CD jacket printing cost money.
I don't know how the profit break down works out since (theoretically at least) you sell and album you get the royalty for that entire album. But if someone only listens to a streamed song, you only get the royalty for that streamed song. People tire of that song, $ dries up. For mega stars this isn't a problem. For new artists I could see it being problematic.
Seems most MacRumors users oppose this rumored change. I tend to doubt it's validity. It wouldn't affect me much anyway, I rarely buy mp3 files. I prefer physical media. Vinyl is the best format for my taste, they almost always come with a free mp3 download these days, they sound better and give me much more joy. Streaming? Not really.
Yeah, with karaoke jokes and front row woohooos. Can't wait...
Or that streaming appeals to some but not others.... I'm 20 and I like owning copies of my own music offline. Streaming is not a good substitute for me.
That's ridiculous, get with the times. Subscription services/on-demand content is here to stay. I haven't downloaded a music song in 5 years. Offline syncing is common place these days. Revenue wise no one is going to pay .99 cents a song when they can subscribe for a service for $5-$10 a month unlimited content.
<speaking in my geezer voice> I remember the day when we didn't have fancy smansy downloading music thingys. We had disks. And not those shiny fun thing, but records. Read grooved (and groovy) records.
Why do you need to "Own" the music, makes no sense.
This is all because Apple was too lazy to design a good interface for Apple Music. That's the only reason people are confused.
[doublepost=1463009264][/doublepost]
Because a) not all of us want to be tied to paying a monthly fee just to access our music.
B) not all of us want to place our trust in a streaming service that may not be around in years to come.
[doublepost=1463009264][/doublepost]
Because a) not all of us want to be tied to paying a monthly fee just to access our music.
B) not all of us want to place our trust in a streaming service that may not be around in years to come.
I will pay .99 for a song (19.99 for a movie) if I can keep it on my device of choice and not burn through my data plan like a banshee...assuming I even have the bandwidth to stream worth a dang.
Why would you burn through your data plan?
Just download over Wi-Fi and sync for offline playback. It's no different than downloading MP3s, except you have unlimited selection.
Giving the consumer options is always the better way to go. And that goes for everything, not just this. Apple forcing us to do it their way or the highway is just a bad Apple.
I personally don't listen to music all that much to justify paying $10 a month. But I have bought a few songs and albums on iTunes before. Not having the option to do that would make me find an alternative to buy that music.
I personally don't listen to music all that much to justify paying $10 a month. But I have bought a few songs and albums on iTunes before. Not having the option to do that would make me find an alternative to buy that music.
Feel the same. I'm slowly getting out of the walled garden. Back to google for contacts calendar and mail, wunderlist for reminders, and looking for a good notes app maybe Evernote. Trialing google music as well since it's basically free iTunes Match.
Lately almost every piece of apple news that comes out (whether from the source or rumour) just doesn't appeal to me at all.
If you don't even spend $10/month on music, they're probably not that concerned about losing your revenue, to be honest.
Here's what you're missing.
Apple prefers that you're confused, because if you werent, the vast majority of people wouldnt want to subscribe to the streaming service anyway.
It's designed like that on purpose, to make sure that you subscribe to the service as opposed to buying tracks/albums
If this rumor is true and they actually wasted time discussing this, then Apple really is lost and completely clueless.