Did you say the same thing when Spotify came out ? "Everyone uses Pandora so why do we need Spotify" ?
Having a choice is not bad and it will either succeed or fail based on how it ultimately compares to the other services.
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 Close to Striking Deal with Record Labels for iRadio
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Did you say the same thing when Spotify came out ? "Everyone uses Pandora so why do we need Spotify" ?
Having a choice is not bad and it will either succeed or fail based on how it ultimately compares to the other services.
The Apple iCure, must go with applecare warranty incase any other problems should happen once you're cured
Technically illiterate (to the extreme) people will use it cause they don't know about anything else other than the built in app.
And I use Grooveshark
And I use Grooveshark too
Apple realizes the advertising brought Google to where they are today. Fair game for both. The more they try to kill each other, the cheaper goods would be. I will buy the cheap iphone when available.
I have noticed that as well. The Maps thing obviously had issues, but it was like the thing didn't work AT ALL. Then any time there is a story about one little thing being wrong with maps, it's THERE'S SOMETHING WRONG WITH APPLE MAPS AGAIN in big, bold headlines. The same exact thing occurs within Google Maps and it's buried in the basement of the Internet. I'm speaking about the Australian notice. The mislocation Apple had was huge news, the same week a Google mistake wasn't.
Then you have these stupid earnings reports. It's not good enough to make a ton of money. It's not good enough to make as much as you did last year. It's not enough to even make more than you did last year. No, you have to make what "analysts" say you should make. So in the last report when Apple said it had made gobs of money again, it was all "Apple fails to meet projections."
Then I see nonsense like a post on the iPhone forum about whether Apple will survive as a company if the next iPhone isn't larger than the iPhone 5. What's sad is I wouldn't be shocked to see some troll on CNet -- aka paid writers -- write the same thing. One person has an opinion that the iPhone isn't big enough and just translates it into a trend.
Me? I wouldn't mind a larger iPhone. It's not any sort of deal breaker. But I don't want a phablet.
Apple sells a bazillion phones. Samsung and other Android-based phones sell like crazy. Windows Phone is liked by pretty much celebrities getting paid to say they like it and people who wig out to dubstep music. Everything else is pretty much a blip on the radar. That's pretty much the way it is.
It's just a choice to get even more locked into an ecosystem. Personally, I am pretty tired of that.
on demand would be good.
A choice, you can not take ... Apple's not exactly locking us in to use this, like they even force you to you their apps..... even if it becomes an "OS integration" in the future, i still won't use it just like I don't use twiiter or iCloud. Because I have no intrest in using them.
Thats hardly locking you into anything.
A choice, you can not take
... Apple's not exactly locking us in to use this, like they even force you to you their apps..... even if it becomes an "OS integration" in the future, i still won't use it just like I don't use twiiter or iCloud. Because I have no intrest in using them. Thats hardly locking you into anything.
Then don't use it
. It's your choice to make (i.e. like I said earlier, more choices is good. If you like it, use it. If you don't like it, don't use it.).
Just in time for Samsung to announce "S-Radio"
Waiting for someone to sue Apple over the use of iRadio
I feel the same way. I mean yeah, we don't know if Apple has a trick up its sleeve that we're not anticipating, and maybe they do... But this just gives me more Apple Maps vibes. Does Apple have to have its fingers in every pie? Not every effort they put forth is going to present a desirable alternative to the services that have already saturated these niches.
Technically, it seems pretty straight-forward for Apple to implement. But I really would to question the ability of Apple to earn revenue through their iAd system (presumably using audio ads). My guess is the record labels have this same concern. If they can figure out a way to generate revenue for the labels, it should be a real winner.
With all Apple COULD do, I'd be highly disappointed if it was essentially just a Pandora clone. There will certainly be features that make it "sticky", particularly who own Apple everything.
You know all of this from a handful of rumors? Just FYI...when Pandora hit the US market, people dismissed it as irrevlant to Satellite Radio and other subscription services (Rhapsody, etc). Then when Spotify hit the US market after the Euro market, people said that Pandora, Satellite, and other subscription services would make it irrelevant in the US. Each time...the market changed and grew in different ways, making the original naysayers look real dumb in hindsight.
You sound like those naysayers from the past that dismissed something as having no place in the market without knowing anything about it. Maybe you know something we don't?
Yes but what we've heard about the service so far, it's not as good as Spotify. They might have a better interface, one that integrates well with iTunes. But feature wise, from what I read, it's a very poor effort and seems like an obvious tactic to get people to buy songs from iTunes.
iRadio would be a very bad name. It's not radio, it's music streaming. Not to mention that the i moniker is so overdone now.
EDIT - Just read the article properly. The user can't select the tracks to listen to?? So this IS radio. What the hell is the point in that? I'll gladly carry on with Spotify, thanks.
Since having Spotify, I can't understand why anyone would buy music. £10 per month and everything you want is available immediately. I've not used iTunes since I signed up late last year.
EDIT - Just read the article properly. The user can't select the tracks to listen to?? So this IS radio. What the hell is the point in that? I'll gladly carry on with Spotify, thanks.
Since having Spotify, I can't understand why anyone would buy music. £10 per month and everything you want is available immediately. I've not used iTunes since I signed up late last year.
Last edited:
Anyone who doesn't think Apple is going to offer this as on-demand radio streaming is downright stupid.
In case you didn't notice already, a basic radio service is already readily available through iTunes. Now, I know that iRadio is targeted at mobile devices, but you have to think for a moment. If all Apple was going to do is copy the existing radio service from iTunes and whack it into iDevices, they wouldn't go to so much effort to negotiate these deep content deals and brand it as iRadio.
A sensible conclusion as to what Apple will most likely do with iRadio is this:
Either a free or low-cost subscription-based, on-demand radio streaming service based on the content of the iTunes store. Every song will have a "buy now" button beside it when played to encourage sales. In addition to on-demand, there will be a large number of "channels", including a system for user-created radio streams, possibly with a small subscription cost to the creator of the stream to set it up. Free listening, of course.
The system will profit from the "buy now" sales and from short radio ads that run possibly every 5-10-15-20 songs. Possibly with some way of disabling ads at a cost.
Keep in mind, this is just logical speculation. I'm not claiming to have inside information.
That, with I'm sure a range of other features that we currently don't know, would make for a great radio service.
Don't be so quick to judge it. It isn't even finalised, let alone released.
In case you didn't notice already, a basic radio service is already readily available through iTunes. Now, I know that iRadio is targeted at mobile devices, but you have to think for a moment. If all Apple was going to do is copy the existing radio service from iTunes and whack it into iDevices, they wouldn't go to so much effort to negotiate these deep content deals and brand it as iRadio.
A sensible conclusion as to what Apple will most likely do with iRadio is this:
Either a free or low-cost subscription-based, on-demand radio streaming service based on the content of the iTunes store. Every song will have a "buy now" button beside it when played to encourage sales. In addition to on-demand, there will be a large number of "channels", including a system for user-created radio streams, possibly with a small subscription cost to the creator of the stream to set it up. Free listening, of course.
The system will profit from the "buy now" sales and from short radio ads that run possibly every 5-10-15-20 songs. Possibly with some way of disabling ads at a cost.
Keep in mind, this is just logical speculation. I'm not claiming to have inside information.
That, with I'm sure a range of other features that we currently don't know, would make for a great radio service.
Don't be so quick to judge it. It isn't even finalised, let alone released.
Of course when Google releases something it will be declared the greatest thing since sliced bread.
What has this to do with the subject? Or is it the usual stab at others to defend Apple? (Of course when -> inject an Apple enemy here <- releases something it will be declared the greatest thing since sliced bread).
Soooo 1997.Just in time for Samsung to announce "S-Radio"
And next thing you say is, that Apple invented it - cause Spotify and Pandora are just hallucinations.
Completely disagree, having i in front of most apple products is a good way for people that don't religiously follow Apple to know the product is made by them.
Apple is all about simplicity, and calling everything an iProduct fits right in with that.
What I think would be an interesting way for Apple to go would be to offer users the ability to listen in full to any song on iTunes on demand for free, with the caveat that each song can only be listened to by each account twice. That would allow the service to act as a preview service, and once you'd listened to an artists new album twice, you'd then have to pay to buy it (or individual songs from the album) through iTunes.
That would obviously mean that some people would be able to listen to music for free for the rest of their lives (and it would be great for parties...), but it would also mean that people that want to own their music and listen to an album dozens of times (still the vast majority of people) would have a way of trying before they buy.
I honestly believe that the system above would result in more sales for the record companies than currently, and would certainly lead to more money for the record companies and artists than if everyone in the world ends up going down the Pandora/ Spotify route. What people need to remember is that the Pandora/ Spotify model works for the record companies while it is still a relatively niche product and physical and iTunes sales are still strong. Once it starts becoming more common place and sales start to drop as a result, the record companies will need to replace that lost revenue by renegotiating terms with Spotify et al. So suddenly your $10 a month Spotify Premium service jumps to $15, and the free version has twice as many ads or disappears completely and is replaced by a $1 a month service.
That would obviously mean that some people would be able to listen to music for free for the rest of their lives (and it would be great for parties...), but it would also mean that people that want to own their music and listen to an album dozens of times (still the vast majority of people) would have a way of trying before they buy.
I honestly believe that the system above would result in more sales for the record companies than currently, and would certainly lead to more money for the record companies and artists than if everyone in the world ends up going down the Pandora/ Spotify route. What people need to remember is that the Pandora/ Spotify model works for the record companies while it is still a relatively niche product and physical and iTunes sales are still strong. Once it starts becoming more common place and sales start to drop as a result, the record companies will need to replace that lost revenue by renegotiating terms with Spotify et al. So suddenly your $10 a month Spotify Premium service jumps to $15, and the free version has twice as many ads or disappears completely and is replaced by a $1 a month service.