Apple Focused on Improving Apple Music Ahead of Android Launch

[EwanMcTeagle]

I could basically sign under all your guys' comments about AM.
Myself, I am probably not AM's target anyway, since I like to "own" my music — I haven't bought some 200 CDs to have to pay for them again. Therefore I gave up on Apple Music after one day, when it messed up my 10 000 song library upon activating the service. Thankfully, all it took to fix was turning AM off and I know they fixed the bug since then, but it's just something I won't tolerate and risk. Not with the history I've had with Apple's ********, I mean software. I had to fix and sync my library (along with restoring, wiping my iPhone) too many times in recent years, months and weeks to risk Apple messing up my collection again.
That's why I want to chip in a few comments about the iOS' Music app and iTunes on top of what has already been said about AM itself (just one comment — fix UI for God sakes, stop shoving Connect down my throat, I want My Music, Artists, Albums and Playlists! If I want Apple Music then I'll turn it on!)
Like many commenters observed, Apple's services and software has been going down the drain for a while. What has become of iTunes is an abomination: Media manager + store + streaming + syncing. And it does neither of those well. I've had more syncing f*ck ups since iOS7 and iTunes 11 than I can remember. And Apple's forums are swelling with people who had their music libraries destroyed, their iPhones not syncing (famous "Other" filling up the storage instead of "Music". In the last week alone I had my Music messed up twice - once while syncing an newly ripped album, the second time just by syncing new apps. I had to start with a fresh iPhone and setting everything up twice - that includes hours wasted on syncing 10 000 songs that somehow didn't make it to the phone's storage and they weren't seen by the software! And that's on a $900 phone (iPhone 6)! If I were on homemade Windows desktop and and old Nokia phone then such glitches were to be expected. They would drive me mad, but I would be more understanding. But not with a absurdly priced Apple's hardware.
I feel it's because Apple has made a simple process of copying your own music to your phone unnecessarily complicated and convoluted. I took a look at the iPhone's folder structure with iExplorer and found that iTunes renames all songs to some abstract names like "XUYXUZXZU" and puts them in folder named "F0X". When my library failed, all my songs were in that folder yet iTunes couldn't see them. Syncing, unsyncing, restoring from backup. Nothing helped except starting fresh - twice in one week.
Since I can't trust iTunes and iOS with simple file copying, you can bet I won't trust them with mixing my library with Apple's streaming service. I prefer the free Spotify tier - at least it doesn't mess with my music and it's 10x better in discovering new music than AM. Apple's software and services had been a buggy experience for a long time and I just don't trust Apple anymore. The days of "it just works" have been long gone and everyone I know sees it now. Most of my friends stopped syncing their iPhones and iPads altogether. They're not music buffs like me, so they can live with having just a few albums on their phones, because they don't want to have their phones messed by iTunes again. My girlfriend, for example, hasn't synced her phone in over a year and she uses some awful Phone Drive app for music listening — she had iTunes mess up on her just one time, but that was enough for her to hate it to the bone... Guess she's not as patient as I was.

 

[ArmCortexA8]

Bottom line is, I don't know why you think you are entitled to enjoy someone's hard work without giving them something in return. That's all. People pay you for what you do for a living, right? Is entertainment a charity? Are artists just trained monkeys for your pleasure? I really think it's just sour grapes that people with an artistic gift sometimes get paid more than you do. You hate that so you steal what they do to express your rage. To prove to yourself that you are superior and can get one over on them. That's why you post on threads like this bragging that you are "sticking it to the man", like it's something to be proud of or you are oh so much more clever than the rest of us who pay. It's sad.

I refuse to support financially a corrupt system which is still corrupt. By paying for music, contractually, I am partaking in the corrupt system. Im not stealing, I am borrowing. Stealing implies ownership. Based on your responses compared to the correct information and history I have found, I am superior. Who has more info here - me. The "artists" chose to be involved in this corrupt industry, and as such be entangled in the corruption - not me.

 

[oopsroger]

Menus like this are crazy to me. What is Apple like about this? It's like Microsoft organized the menus or something.

This is one of the most visually appalling user interface I have ever seen

 

[k1121j]

the more i use it the more i hate the music app on top of apple music.
1. why docent the mini player disappear when I'm not playing something
2. custom stations can't be renamed , deleted, saved in a dedicated place other the Recently played :-/
3. Why do some songs say i can add them to my music and some only let me add them to a playlist :-/
4. the only way to get rid of the "for you", "New", "Connect" is to turn off apple music totally OMG so frustrating

Canceled!!!!!! i can download the songs i want for less then 10 bucks a month so the rest is not worth the hassle

 

[BuffaloTF]

I wont' pay for music unless I get the music in a tangible format in return. I will not pay to access music, at my own internet / data cost then be expected to purchase the music as well. Im not here to support the corrupt industry.

Funny. You're justifying stealing by referring to it as not tangible... But then qualify it as tangible by stating it consumes something that is tangible, data and storage. Since those are tangible, it makes the space these digital copies occupy tangible. That's like me saying I can go to the store and copy a cassette or cd without ever leaving the store, because I already have "access at my own cost" in purchasing my blank cassette or cd and my boom box. Not so.

And even still, even intangible items are capable of being owned and controlled, and produce economic value... Making them assets... And assets have a value of ownership that can be converted to real cash... Which means taking them without paying cash means you're stealing. Big example. Stocks are not true "physical" items. Can you download those off the internet for free? No... No you can't.

Copyright infringement is a subsection defined in Stolen Property law. Unlawful use of recordings is defined under General Theft. Perhaps consult a lawyer next time you need a legal opinion... Not YouTube.

 

[phrehdd]

For those that like the service and level of quality I am glad for you. As for me, I would love to see Apple raise the bar and provide 256bitrate for streaming and get into HD audio. Sadly, the portables (iPhone etc.) don't handle anything above 44.1/16. - What a pity. Then again, it doesn't handle flac and some other file formats that are fairly popular. Just AAC and MP3. All the rest of this stuff is service that will remain questionable as far as Apple Music is concerned.

If Android along with some company like Amazon got its act together, they could provide same service, more features (like music formats) and demonstrate just how limited the "Apple eco System" is with respect to music.

 

[Michael Goff]

I refuse to support financially a corrupt system which is still corrupt. By paying for music, contractually, I am partaking in the corrupt system. Im not stealing, I am borrowing. Stealing implies ownership. Based on your responses compared to the correct information and history I have found, I am superior. Who has more info here - me. The "artists" chose to be involved in this corrupt industry, and as such be entangled in the corruption - not me.

So you're going to give the artists back the money they would have got from your "borrowing"? Probably not, you think you're entitled to their work for nothing. I have an idea. How about your boss doesn't pay you next week? I'm sure you'd be okay with that, right?

 

[Keirasplace]

For those that like the service and level of quality I am glad for you. As for me, I would love to see Apple raise the bar and provide 256bitrate for streaming and get into HD audio. Sadly, the portables (iPhone etc.) don't handle anything above 44.1/16. - What a pity. Then again, it doesn't handle flac and some other file formats that are fairly popular. Just AAC and MP3. All the rest of this stuff is service that will remain questionable as far as Apple Music is concerned.

If Android along with some company like Amazon got its act together, they could provide same service, more features (like music formats) and demonstrate just how limited the "Apple eco System" is with respect to music.

The vast majority of people don't give a crap about hyper bitrate music.

Why?

They listen to music
- On apalling systems and conditions
- That has restricted harmonics and dynamic range that compresses very well at much less than 256 aac
- With normal ears that can't distinguish 256 aac from the master even in the best of listening conditions

They don't see the point of anything "better" and they're probably right, for them there is no point.

 

[phrehdd]

The vast majority of people don't give a crap about hyper bitrate music.

Why?

They listen to music
- On apalling systems and conditions
- That has restricted harmonics and dynamic range that compresses very well at much less than 256 aac
- With normal ears that can't distinguish 256 aac from the master even in the best of listening conditions

They don't see the point of anything "better" and they're probably right, for them there is no point.

I didn't say instead of but in addition to 256 aac. Not everyone listens to junk with junk and while 256 aac is very good, it is not the end all. There is no reason that other types of files cannot be played other than Apple simply chose to not provide anything except their AAC and compromise with allowing MP3. Bottom line is that the unit is intentionally limited and I merely would prefer a broaden set of options.

We can agree that lots of people don't care about quality of music but again, it wouldn't take much for Apple to simply allow other formats and to address higher rez music (44.1/24 or 96/24). In the meanwhile I believe, based on Beats headphones, you are certainly right people will buy anything to hear a (i)tune or two. Rather interesting that both video and video audio is addressing a similar upscaling of product with 4k tv and ATMOS surround along with HD audio.

 

[BuffaloTF]

I didn't say instead of but in addition to 256 aac. Not everyone listens to junk with junk and while 256 aac is very good, it is not the end all. There is no reason that other types of files cannot be played other than Apple simply chose to not provide anything except their AAC and compromise with allowing MP3. Bottom line is that the unit is intentionally limited and I merely would prefer a broaden set of options.

It kind of is the end all tho. There's certainly not a single MP3 format better than AAC 256. The only thing that approaches its transparency is WMA Pro... Not 320 MP3, not even close or worthwhile, and not the garbage ogg container Spotify is using. They'd have to move up to ALAC to beat their own 256... Cuz they won't be using FLAC. And in the mobile world, 256 AAC being transparent on almost everything should be more than good enough... It'll keep data rates and charges down.

 

[phrehdd]

It kind of is the end all tho. There's certainly not a single MP3 format better than AAC 256. The only thing that approaches its transparency is WMA Pro... Not 320 MP3, not even close or worthwhile, and not the garbage ogg container Spotify is using. They'd have to move up to ALAC to beat their own 256... Cuz they won't be using FLAC. And in the mobile world, 256 AAC being transparent on almost everything should be more than good enough... It'll keep data rates and charges down.

While the i-device can play MP3 (as a compromise), the 256 AAC file is fine with moderate ear pieces Some of us, however do use lossless Apple format for our CD collection. Some of us also download files that are higher end and with some other portable players, we can play them and yes, there is a difference in sound. I merely suggested that Apple open up its players to handle MORE such as flac files, such as 44.1/24 or 48.0/24 and 96/24. Apple chooses to support only AAC, ALAC 44.1/16 and MP3 to keep everything in Apple's camp.

 

[BuffaloTF]

While the i-device can play MP3 (as a compromise), the 256 AAC file is fine with moderate ear pieces Some of us, however do use lossless Apple format for our CD collection. Some of us also download files that are higher end and with some other portable players, we can play them and yes, there is a difference in sound. I merely suggested that Apple open up its players to handle MORE such as flac files, such as 44.1/24 or 48.0/24 and 96/24. Apple chooses to support only AAC, ALAC 44.1/16 and MP3 to keep everything in Apple's camp.

Ok... And it's transparent at 256 AAC for almost all music on *any* earpiece. You'd have to dive deep in ABX tests, very deep, to ever find an artifact to get those "killer samples" only the headiest of high-fi fanatics use. Transparency is when something is audibly indistinguishable from its CD... And Mastered for iTunes 256 AAC is exactly that.

You know they're never going to use FLAC. They have ALAC, which is the exact same thing, except they own the encoder. I don't even know why we'd even ask for them to not do that. And besides, 24 bit is almost as useless as 192 kHz sampling. It takes up 6x as much space and adds literally nothing over the 16/44.1 unless you're watching a graph as opposed to using your ears.

 

[phrehdd]

Ok... And it's transparent at 256 AAC for almost all music on *any* earpiece. You'd have to dive deep in ABX tests, very deep, to ever find an artifact to get those "killer samples" only the headiest of high-fi fanatics use. Transparency is when something is audibly indistinguishable from its CD... And Mastered for iTunes 256 AAC is exactly that.

You know they're never going to use FLAC. They have ALAC, which is the exact same thing, except they own the encoder. I don't even know why we'd even ask for them to not do that. And besides, 24 bit is almost as useless as 192 kHz sampling. It takes up 6x as much space and adds literally nothing over the 16/44.1 unless you're watching a graph as opposed to using your ears.

Since we are playing this round of paraphrase and quotes, lets get to the real crux of mastering. ITunes mastering doesn't mean anything since nothing is stated other than "remastered" for Itunes. Go check out the sound track for "Some Like it Hot" mastered for iTunes. It is horrible...not bad...horrible. I can't imagine that my over half a century old ears are that much better than someone younger. I can certainly tell the difference on some types of music between AAC 256 and a decent 96/24 file on my speakers and on some headphones. As for matching a CD...sure why not...a cd starts at 44.1/16 not 192/24 or higher. We'll have to agree to disagree here...but I'll leave you with this -

Take a very high fidelity digital file that is at least 196/24 that is mastered well. Do the following -

192/24 to 44.1/16 Apple Lossless
192/24 to 256 AAC
192/24 to 44.1/16 to 256 AAC

Find a good saturated intricate part or a very quiet musical part and let me know what you "hear" and the differences. I will also say that certain types of music don't make much difference (supporting your argument sort of here) when played at 256 but some absolutely do and arriving at a 256 quality file requires more than a "transfer" recoding.

 

[BuffaloTF]

Since we are playing this round of paraphrase and quotes, lets get to the real crux of mastering. ITunes mastering doesn't mean anything since nothing is stated other than "remastered" for Itunes. Go check out the sound track for "Some Like it Hot" mastered for iTunes. It is horrible...not bad...horrible. I can't imagine that my over half a century old ears are that much better than someone younger. I can certainly tell the difference on some types of music between AAC 256 and a decent 96/24 file on my speakers and on some headphones. As for matching a CD...sure why not...a cd starts at 44.1/16 not 192/24 or higher. We'll have to agree to disagree here...but I'll leave you with this -

Take a very high fidelity digital file that is at least 196/24 that is mastered well. Do the following -

192/24 to 44.1/16 Apple Lossless
192/24 to 256 AAC
192/24 to 44.1/16 to 256 AAC

Find a good saturated intricate part or a very quiet musical part and let me know what you "hear" and the differences. I will also say that certain types of music don't make much difference (supporting your argument sort of here) when played at 256 but some absolutely do and arriving at a 256 quality file requires more than a "transfer" recoding.

I'll do one better:

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

192/24 is actually inferior to 44.1/16. It has less fidelity. Scientifically shown.

Sorry your ears are fooling you.

 

[phrehdd]

I'll do one better:

http://xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.html

192/24 is actually inferior to 44.1/16. It has less fidelity. Scientifically shown.

Sorry your ears are fooling you.

Yes, I am familiar with that xiph paper. However, it doesn't address everything there and certainly fails to mention proper comparison of what else sits at the high and low end of music as well as 16 vs 24 proper.

DSD full nuance with great spacial effect
PCM 192/24 - mix bag like all the rest depending much on how the original was mastered and what sampling techniques were used. We might as well throw in analogue original vs digital accepted original/master as matter that confound the issue.

I'll continue to listen to full orchestral music and film scores in "HD" and leave rock and other similar to red book quality 44.1/16 given they are engineered well, sampling is a single vs 2 or 4 pass etc.