I heard this exact phrase repeatedly in the year 2000.
[automerge]1587140804[/automerge]
Day 1 out of beta, I'm not expecting much more than bare bones really. However, I can't even sign into it on Edge.
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 Music on the Web Exits Beta
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I heard this exact phrase repeatedly in the year 2000.
[automerge]1587140804[/automerge]
Day 1 out of beta, I'm not expecting much more than bare bones really. However, I can't even sign into it on Edge.
Does the web or Android have gapless yet? That's what I'm waiting for before switching to Apple Music.
My experience with the Beta wasn’t that great, and I’ve found myself using YouTube Music a lot more recently since they opened up the ability to upload your music there like GPM.
Add in a YT Premium sub and you’re set.
Add in a YT Premium sub and you’re set.
I think I did a few, but I had just gotten the original "stick" iPod Shuffle, and so had to sync it as MP3 with GTKpod. LOVED that Shuffle. $49, I think it was, and it was my first Apple product (no kidding); it began "the halo effect" for me and eventually my mom. She was so impressed by its simplicity, that she got one for herself. Now she and my stepdad are both fully into the Apple world. haha!
But I did rip everything with LAME and --ape. :-D
iTunes Match is my favorite thing Apple ever did, and now it's been completely forgotten.
Some people rebel against the idea FaceTime and iMessage for Android users but in fact, this would benefit Apple users above all. How many times were you unable to have a Group FaceTime or iMessage because just one of them was Android? Making them universally accessible would allow us to stay within FaceTime and iMessage, rather than being dragged into Zoom calls and WhatsApp groups.
I have one question about this. I subscribe to Apple Music and am well aware of the 5 computer limit for listening to music via "authorization". (As well as 10 other, non-computer devices.). Is Apple going to count any access via web browser against this limit? And if they don't do that, they just rendered their 5 computer limit meaningless, no?
Before there were apps, the iPhone was pushing web apps no? I know there's a story behind this that I believe came from John Carmack. John Carmack wanted Steve Jobs to do apps instead of web apps but Jobs told him he was a moron and didn't know what he was talking about. In actuality, Steve Jobs was already planning to have web apps but Apple wasn't ready yet so the web apps were made to hold people over till Apple got everything ready.
I'm going off of memory here, hopefully someone more familiar with the story chimes in.
Going back to the original point, haven't we seen a resurgence accompanied by improvements in web technology to make the web a more viable alternative to apps? Plus we also now have a situation where developers are having to develop for multiple platforms including iOS, Android, Windows, and Mac. If you make a good browser app you can cover all of those platforms plus others like Linux.
I understand what you are saying though, break a promise enough times and no one will believe you anymore.
Correct. I'm guessing you don't listen to music that benefits from being gapless. Gapless is important for albums that have several tracks that should be listened to continuously. The most famous album that should be gapless is Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon. Genres like jazz and classical very commonly have several tracks that should be played continuously while normally rock albums don't have continuous tracks.
It's a big deal for some while others don't care.
There is a technical side to this that makes it complicated. File formats like AAC and MP3 do not natively support gapless albums. They have to use software tricks to get it to work which apparently is not trivial as many companies have a hard time doing this. There are file formats like FLAC which natively support gapless which makes it very simple to implement.
What I'm saying about the web based stuff is that they were even predicting HTML based operating systems that were incredibly lightweight. Video games will likely not ever be web based before they become streaming only, and the promise of 100% cloud based applications ala virtual desktop infrastructure has been being promised since the 1970's. Just saying, 5 years is probably both too short and too long.
As far as gapless goes I was just verifying. My freaking user avatar is the hammers from Pink Floyd The Wall afterall lol...definitely an album that benefits from gapless playback.
I haven't really listened to albums in order in quite a while though, if I'm listening to PF these days it's rare demos and whatnot. So I haven't noticed myself.
Shockingly so. It's like a transistor radio. I wasn't expecting perfection, but I wasn't expecting this, either. It makes me wonder if I've somehow not got a setting right, but I can't find it.
[automerge]1587153214[/automerge]
No... it's seriously worse by far for what I'm hearing.
Are you listening to it on mobile or wifi? I'm going back and forth between the iTunes app and the browser app and it's identical in every way. The reason I ask if it's mobile is that it's possible the music is being re-encoded by your wireless provider similar to the way they would do with video.
Last edited:
I read somewhere that the browser version of Apple Music is limited to a stream rate of 64kbps. I believe that is the quality problem people are reporting.
This product should probably still be considered beta. I'm sure it'll improve in the future but for now it seems its still beta.
I would definitely notice 64kbps, that sounds like music being played in a tin can. I'm absolutely not experiencing that in my browser.
That wont be a thing much longer. Look at nvidia or google's game streaming program. The servers that run those games are more powerful than most at home computers. The only thing stopping them is the current network infrastructure. Once that hurdle is done you will start seeing other big companies switch over to streaming their programs over a browser or portal
You sound like a gamer. Games are very different from pro apps, where, as I said, time is money. Games only need enough performance for whatever effects they're attempting to render, so that it can render those effects at a minimum of about 30 times a second. Simple. Pro apps often have far more time consuming renders (for a full-length movie, for example), which can take a tremendous amount of time on a normal gaming PC. In fact, that market primarily makes use of expensive workstations with high-end compute GPUs (not the same type of GPU you probably use in your own gaming PC, and often much more expensive as well).
As I said, security concerns mean that certain system integrations will likely never happen on the web. There will likely never be an Xcode for Safari, for example, as the technologies required to implement such a thing would be a security nightmare. Many other IDEs and developer tools (again, pro apps) will never be available on the web for that reason (although code editors are already a thing. That'll likely be the extent of how far a dev will be able to go on a platform where compilation is unsafe).
Games are, as I said a consumer application, and (as I said) will likely become more and more common on the web as time goes by.
I do lots of 4k video editing and graphic design on my PC.
Which would be sent off to a render farm for such a task. Many high end pro stuff are already being done on other servers. Yeah it may not work well now but its only going to get better. Programming will too. As mentioned by you there are already code editors that run in the browser. Why do you think people are just going to stop there? Everything can and eventually be done in a browser. Stop applying the way the modern world functions and assume it will be like that in the future. The future is in the cloud and EVERYTHING will be done through there one day.
hell no! If that’s going to give us the experience like Spotify through an app Ui on a smartphone then you can keep that junk! Free Spotify (your web app) is only a remote on Apple Watch, and a neutered music player that doe t allow unlimited skips - essential since Spotify adds garbage and non relevant music to a playlist anyone creates! This is beyond frustrating and annoying as it doesn’t even play like a standard music player nor allow me to remove their music. Finding the music I prefer the actual tracks not some lame DJ mix or playlist is ridiculous!
no I want a proper app and service please.
What?! ITunes on Win7/10 runs just as smooth if not better and reliably than on High Sierra or Mojave. I’ve had it crash on High Sierra on 2012 Mac Mini twice in the last week all updates installed.
if you’re having issues on Windows maybe your machine is not up to snuff. Uninstall and download theiTunes for Windows meant for older gpu’s. Give that a try.
That is with today's limitations. If we continue at the rate we are improving now, then in 10-15 years they will catch up and surpass the experience local hardware can bring
today's limitations? lmao ... HTML has been steadily improving every few years since 1990 if it's not happening now to better user engagement and fulfillment today ... it's not really going to change 10yrs from now. Google's Chrome, basically a modern dumb-terminal on laptops and tablets still cannot compete to rich client applications. It's not API's it's not HTML/CSS code ... it's just because it lives in a browser or browser like ideal.
Can social media apps live in the browser, of course they can ... but browsers can limit the information they get, the intuitive nature of the UI for us humans to interact with.
That mantra you've stated has been around over 20yrs ... and still nothing much has changed.
20 years ago our computers couldnt do much besides basic html and css. Our networks were dialup for many.
Go ahead and try to run your pro apps on a computer from 2000. Oh wait you cant because of the limitations at the time.
Modern advancements in internet speed and hardware are what made that capable. In the 20 years we have made amazing leaps and with todays technology we will overcome the current limitations just like we have done time and time again in the computer world.
In another 20 years (im expecting the transition to be heavily underway in 10 years we will be doing everything in the cloud. Our devices will just be focused on durability and battery life since the performance part will be done from machines up in the cloud
Go ahead and try to run a modern website like twitter or anything more complex on a computer made in 2000/2001 and watch it crawl to a halt while scrolling ... simply just scrolling. Is that all you got? come at me.
BTW 802.11b existed back in 2000 via PCIA cards for laptops and via PCIe or IDE cards, but keep at the wired push.
EDIT: IBM, Oracle, Microsoft etc are doing a lot of things in the cloud yet they still work with applications as rich clients and as conduits to work in the cloud. On mobile devices this becomes even more difficult, not due to mmwave like mobile network speeds which will become the norm in 4yrs at reasonable prices, yet it's the UI limitations on small screens, browsers on laptops are decent yet processing that raw data is not the way ... the continuous and endless OS crashing consumption of real RAM on a workstation (think laptops here) is far too much with data analytics or AI beyond a real demo. I'd love to see a full day over a browser with multiple tabs today vs a rich client yet we haven't yet. Will it come ... sure maybe ... but not in 10yrs ... 20yrs ... I'm not holding my breath on equal or better performance than a rich client created at that time either.
we'll see though, we shall see.
Last edited: