Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Blackberry had the market, Tidal never has. I mean, again, Tidal is still around? Isn't it just free with T Mobile or something?
Oh yeah I forgot that. Someone said Jack Dorsey just purchased it recently? 😳
 
Forgive me if I missed it, but have we figured out whether and how this “lossless” will work for wireless streaming? Has Apple said they are ditching AAC for ALAC and if so, if that simply a software update or will it require new hardware. I’m very confused at the wireless streaming portion of this. From what I can tell, I do not see any improvements to the current bluetooth codec. So nothing similar to LDAC or AptxHD. If that’s the case, this is kind of a disappointing announcement. Hopefully I am missing something.
Apple devices and music apps (including iTunes on computers) have always supported ALAC.

You will not be able to hear lossless if you use Bluetooth headphones. iOS devices will encode the audio with AAC to transmit it over BT. Not that lossless makes any sense anyway if you listen through tiny earbuds.
 
  • Like
Reactions: nrose101
Hmm.. How will this work with Bluetooth and how will this work with apple music on PC (it's not).
I will subscribe if the PC app is updated.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tonyr6
Bands make the songs…. So as long the band is together or the artist, they will probably make new music.

😂😂 really? You never met anyone who will? Well now you have. I may not like the bands out now, but the bands I do like are still making new music.

Bands do indeed make songs but I seem to only have one or two songs from an artist or band. And while you are indeed an exception to the rule, you aren't a 'real' person that I have met in person. I can (after the current apocalypse) visit my friends and count the same number of CD's on the rack and same number of songs in their libraries.
 
lol. In 2021 most people are streaming.

Doesn’t necessarily mean that’s all they do though. I use Apple Music a lot, it’s a great discovery tool and awesome for music I might not necessarily buy.

I also maintain a library of purchased lossless and high resolution music, the stuff I really love. Because every now and then Apple messes around with my albums and playlists, removing tracks, or replacing them with entirely the wrong version for an album.

Doesn’t happen too frequently, but it’s annoying when it does happen. Of course, not all of the blame can be laid at the feet of Apple. There’s always licensing and various other reasons why they have to do this.

I also like to use my Walkman for my lossless/Hi-Res music, as it saves me having to plug in an external DAC on the iPhone to fully appreciate it (although I have a pretty decent portable one, it’s just cumbersome).

I may one day give up on streaming altogether, unlikely, but possible. So I will continue to purchase high quality music, even when this comes along next month.

It may well have an effect on just how much new music I actually purchase, that we’ll have to wait and see. I suspect having lossless, streaming, CD quality wirelessly on my AirPods Max will change my usage pattern. But I still think there’s room for both to exist together.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Unregistered 4U
Bands do indeed make songs but I seem to only have one or two songs from an artist or band. And while you are indeed an exception to the rule, you aren't a 'real' person that I have met in person. I can (after the current apocalypse) visit my friends and count the same number of CD's on the rack and same number of songs in their libraries.
Really? Like I said, I have yet to meet a person who doesn’t go beyond what they listened too in high school. I bet even in these forums, there are more people who will listen to new music then people like you.
 
Like others, I buy the music I really love. But only As a hard copy. I have no problem streaming music, especially since the music market isn’t fractured like streaming video: we generally get access to everything without subscribing to multiple services. However, if you’re buying music on, say, iTunes, you still could lose access to that music at some point. If you truly want to “own” it to make sure it’s available forever and ever, then a hard copy is the only way to go.
I do this as well. I subscribe to Apple Music but for artists I deeply care about I buy their music in a physical format. Just as I do for film and TV. I don’t feel like I truly own something unless I can tangibly hold it. However, it’s unfortunately becoming less common for most people and I feel physical media will be obsolete eventually. Sad. I will cling to physical media and it’s quality when compared to streaming (moreso for bluray and 4K Bluray standards when compared to streaming).
 
Why would you spend that much on a few songs when you could get tens of millions more songs for the same price?

I flat out don’t even understand your logic lol, you’re saying that you don’t need new music because you’ll be listening to the same songs for decades, but still buy music every year.

If someone said I could pay $100 for 100 songs or $100 for tens of millions I don’t even know what the debate could be about.
It's called supporting artist. They get next to nothing on streaming.
 
You must not have met many people in your life. What a ridiculous statement.

Regardless of the number of people I have met, my statement holds. If listening habits are different in your part of the world or your generation, that is a-ok, but doesn't remotely change my experiences.
 
Really? Like I said, I have yet to meet a person who doesn’t go beyond what they listened too in high school. I bet even in these forums, there are more people who will listen to new music then people like you.

Different lives, different countries, different ages, so very different world experiences.
 
no mention whether this extends to iTunes purchased music or the ones I had to my music library.
 
What is the rationale to limit actual purchases to lossy only…I don’t get it

Apple Music as a service can likely negotiate better quality as a free upgrade but for purchases it’s a different beast. A purchase gives studios multitudes more than a stream—and higher resolution tends to be priced double that—so why slash that profit for the sole purpose of making Apple look good?
 
Not aimed at me. But I have added 7 songs in 20 years to my library. Why would I pay $100 a year? That's make those 7 songs cost $2000...
Ok…. Clearly I was wrong to assume that people commenting on a streaming service post would either use a streaming service or continue to search and find new music for themselves.

I didn’t know people listen too the same few songs and basically nothing new over 20+ years.
 
no mention whether this extends to iTunes purchased music or the ones I had to my music library.

A previous post mentioned that this is only for subscriptions. Our purchased music will remain as is, Apple seem not to want more money.
 
Different lives, different countries, different ages, so very different world experiences.
My daughter who’s hasn’t been out of highschool very long (a few years) will listen to new music. She actually likes some of the bands I like, and I don’t mind some of her bands and music, and I will listen to them.
My mom is 70+ and will listen to new music. She’s on my family plan and loves it.
I get into the bands. One band I like, members quit and start new bands or go solo, then I listen to their stuff as well. This happens a lot.
I get Apple Music isn’t for you, but you can’t expect the quality to change on stuff you bought just because Apple Music is upgrading music.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.