Most streaming services, including Spotify and AM let you listen offline as long as your subscription is valid.
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 can understand why they're doing this -- the relationship between iTunes and Apple Music can be described as clunky at best -- but I sincerely hope this is not how they go about fixing it. I personally stream and purchase music, I first stream a song/album for a while to see if I like it, and if I do I go to iTunes and pay for it. This let's me own my own music while supporting the artist without having to blindly purchase it not knowing whether it's good or bad.
In retrospect, it looks like they've been planning this for a while. With the slow move away from "i_____" products to "Apple _____" products, it seems like Apple Music was always meant to be the successor to iTunes, rather than a supplement.
RIP iTunes, despite your troubles, you were hands down the best digital music store out there. You will be missed.
In retrospect, it looks like they've been planning this for a while. With the slow move away from "i_____" products to "Apple _____" products, it seems like Apple Music was always meant to be the successor to iTunes, rather than a supplement.
RIP iTunes, despite your troubles, you were hands down the best digital music store out there. You will be missed.
Given that there is SIXTEEN PAGES OF COMMENTS, I don't know if I can add anything else, except OMG!!!
Are they NUTS? Wait, yep. Well, or they think all of us are stoopid... WOW!!!
Are they NUTS? Wait, yep. Well, or they think all of us are stoopid... WOW!!!
Why would you burn through your data plan?
Perhaps I am confused. I thought the rumor was that downloading the music for offline playback is what is what is being eliminated.
Ah. That clarifies. Thanks.
I would still rather not be tethered to subscription service where content may go ffttt at any point like with Netflix.
Yeah, $10 a month without actually owning any of it. Like others I have no intention of paying a subscription fee for music. I'll just go elsewhere.
Unless Apple stores the "product" they can neither stream it to you, nor sell it to you.
Most of the benefits come down to people who've been building music libraries since before streaming music was a thing. For new music listeners streaming music is a far, far more attractive option. Thus, it's easy to envision a future in which streaming music is the dominant form of music consumption.
Music is very personal to people. Very, very personal. It's not like Netflix, where a TV show appearing then disappearing later is not that big a deal. With music, if you lose access to a song you love, it hurts. Some songs, I just want to own. For the rest of my life, with no risk of it being "taken away".
Why can't we just have both? It doesn't cost ANYTHING extra to have both. You have to have the song on the server anyway. Simply let the user *stream* it if they have a subscription, and *download* it DRM-free if they want to buy that track. The cost delta to implement both is tiny. Hell, the music has to be encrypted for each user anyway to apply DRM for streaming; when you buy the track it actually uses LESS CPU power because the raw unencrypted data can be sent!
Not to mention, instead of just $10 a month, you're getting $10 a month + purchases from many customers, myself included.
Why can't we just have both? It doesn't cost ANYTHING extra to have both. You have to have the song on the server anyway. Simply let the user *stream* it if they have a subscription, and *download* it DRM-free if they want to buy that track. The cost delta to implement both is tiny. Hell, the music has to be encrypted for each user anyway to apply DRM for streaming; when you buy the track it actually uses LESS CPU power because the raw unencrypted data can be sent!
Not to mention, instead of just $10 a month, you're getting $10 a month + purchases from many customers, myself included.
But Apple often wags the industry, and this could either be the time that 'the industry' flips them the finger, or everyone tries to beat Apple to screwing their customers.
I mean, what's next? Best Buy not stocking audio CD's?
Wait, what? Really? Hmm. Crap...
What about movies? Are they going to stop selling movies and just start a movie streaming service too?
It probably makes business sense: Streaming is more profitable. But streaming is not yet as reliable as having content on your device. My cable internet service is very reliable, but not 100% reliable. And when I'm traveling I don't have enough data allowance for streaming, and I'm often in places where the internet is not available.
But no company (Apple or any other) cares about our needs. Companies care about profits. They'll make the decisions that they think will make them the most money. That's how the free market is supposed to work.
Like pretty much everyone else posting in this thread, I'll buy and download music from Amazon if I cannot get it from Apple.
But no company (Apple or any other) cares about our needs. Companies care about profits. They'll make the decisions that they think will make them the most money. That's how the free market is supposed to work.
Like pretty much everyone else posting in this thread, I'll buy and download music from Amazon if I cannot get it from Apple.
To all those who are saying streaming is the future and that some of us who still purchase music need to get with the programme I say this: Good luck with finding anything new worth listening to in 10 years time.
Isn't that the kicker though? You never really lose access to a song because nearly all of it is available to listen to online anyway. I know a lot of people who just type in youtube when they want to listen to something.
So Apple is denying this story:
http://www.recode.net/2016/5/11/11660982/apple-itunes-music-downloads-not-true
http://www.recode.net/2016/5/11/11660982/apple-itunes-music-downloads-not-true
Well... I might be a minority (or at least that's what it feels like on here), but I like Apple Music. As a constantly broke student, I really like the possibility to listen to artists/albums whose music I otherwise would not have bought. Sometimes I just want to 'check an artist/album out' - like back in the day when you would go to the store and listen to the CD before actually buying it. I may listen to it once and never again. I find myself doing this a lot. Just as with Netflix (or renting a Movie in iTunes).
But I also like to buy albums when I know I'm gonna listen to it more than once in the future. Like favorite bands and such. That's what people mean when they say they want to 'own' music. They want to be able to keep listening to it even after cancelling a subscription service. And I liked the convenience of just being able to download it instead of having to digitize a physical CD - in addition to being able to access it from anywhere through the cloud.
That is, you know, besides the fact that there are many artists who aren't on Apple Music, especially smaller bands, but even quite a few pretty famous ones who just don't like streaming.
I don't stream. Data cap, travelling, ...you name it. I make my Apple Music "available offline", so I'm not concerned too much about that.
But generally I really detest this trend of subscription everything. I hate Adobe for it. And many other software developers follow suite. They keep saying it's for the customer's advantage, because they get all the best updates all the time and they save money while doing so - but in reality it's only them who make money because the majority doesn't update their (otherwise expensive) software every year but keeps using it for as long as possible.
Give people the choice. Simple as that. But probably not in the interest of stockholders...
But I also like to buy albums when I know I'm gonna listen to it more than once in the future. Like favorite bands and such. That's what people mean when they say they want to 'own' music. They want to be able to keep listening to it even after cancelling a subscription service. And I liked the convenience of just being able to download it instead of having to digitize a physical CD - in addition to being able to access it from anywhere through the cloud.
That is, you know, besides the fact that there are many artists who aren't on Apple Music, especially smaller bands, but even quite a few pretty famous ones who just don't like streaming.
I don't stream. Data cap, travelling, ...you name it. I make my Apple Music "available offline", so I'm not concerned too much about that.
But generally I really detest this trend of subscription everything. I hate Adobe for it. And many other software developers follow suite. They keep saying it's for the customer's advantage, because they get all the best updates all the time and they save money while doing so - but in reality it's only them who make money because the majority doesn't update their (otherwise expensive) software every year but keeps using it for as long as possible.
Give people the choice. Simple as that. But probably not in the interest of stockholders...
So, if this were to happen, how do I listen to my music while on the beach in Baja with no Wi-fi or trekking in Nepal with no Wi-fi or in the beach bungalow in Bali with no internet? Am I missing something here? Are they assuming that every time we want to listen to music that we are connected to the internet? If so, how rudely myopic. Are they that addicted themselves that they can't remember that traveling to places without internet is actually a beautiful and healthy thing to do?
Why not just go buy it on the Windows Store, Google Play Music, Amazon Music, 7digital, and so on?
I doubt that would be a problem.
Finding people who buy downloads, now that WOULD be a problem.
Agreed - on the lousy $20 earbuds that come with a phone, nope, you won't. On a high-end home audio system, with well-mastered music? Easy to hear the difference.
The problem with syncing is that every time I switch music or get a new device, it's a data cap hit, not to mention, takes a long time (longer than a USB 2 sync, and far longer than a USB 3 sync). Why download multiple times, when it's once and done?
Apple's done that now with apps too - you used to be able to transfer purchased back to iTunes, and can't anymore. They live in the world of uncapped, gigabit home internet access. Some time they need to come out into the real world.
I'm not saying that Apple shouldn't offer streaming - just that it only applies for part of their customer base. It's ironic that Apple celebrated Steve Job's love of music by showing his hi-fi system - one that would sound far better than a 256k AAC file. They've traded convenience for quality. Some may like that tradeoff, but many don't.
This puts a big cost onto their customers. (Victims)
So, if I can't store anything, I have to have *some* level of internet access *everywhere* I want to listen to 'music'.
Um... Perhaps Apple po-bahs can afford to be raped on a flight for the 'GoGo Internet', but I refuse to pay for that crap.
But, hey, Apple sells a $400 watch band. They essentially nearly doubled the price of an iPad. They appear to think that the 0.01% will support them and keep their profits high. Perhaps the air is clearer 'up there', floating above the 'riff-raff'?
So, if I can't store anything, I have to have *some* level of internet access *everywhere* I want to listen to 'music'.
Um... Perhaps Apple po-bahs can afford to be raped on a flight for the 'GoGo Internet', but I refuse to pay for that crap.
But, hey, Apple sells a $400 watch band. They essentially nearly doubled the price of an iPad. They appear to think that the 0.01% will support them and keep their profits high. Perhaps the air is clearer 'up there', floating above the 'riff-raff'?