- Nov 14, 2011
I hate to say it but I agree 100% with this article from Mashable. Especially the paragraphs below. It's pretty sad when the talk on Twitter is not the music service but Cue's shirt and embarrassing dancing.
It didn't have to be like this. Apple had a golden opportunity to return to a beautifully simple interface, one that combines your music with streaming music, your playlists with other users'. They could have focused on making Music load faster than Spotify; they could have offered higher bitrate streaming for the audiophiles (Tidal's one good feature), and easy playlist uploading from other platforms to mollify the prodigal iTunes users who strayed.
They could even have mentioned all the music they can stream that Spotify currently can't. No, Apple doesn't appear to have persuaded the Beatles to sign over streaming rights, but from the brief Music demo it appears that Taylor Swift is on board.
Instead, we got this design-by-committee approach — and a very underwhelming response over on the real social networks.
And while I'm fully prepared to eat some kind of headgear if I'm wrong on this, all signs point to the fact that Apple is running scared on music. Its dad-dancing executives appear to have ceded control of the space to Iovine, seduced by his fast-talking patter and the sense that he (along with Trent Reznor and Dr. Dre, remember him?) has some sort of magic formula to attract millennial listeners.
Hence the anger and frustration. Apple didn't need to buy Beats to retake the high ground in online music. It went in precisely the wrong direction — and by doing so, it appears to have poisoned the company culture where music is concerned. That doesn't bode well for Apple under Cook's decision-making. Because while having strong morals is great and necessary as a leader, having strong products, and knowing how to take them to new highs, is the company's lifeblood. Any fanboy or fangirl will tell you that.