Apple Music to Support Saving Playlists and Songs for Offline Listening

[milo]

Why are news outlets reporting that apple music doesn't have a "free" tier like the other big names?
Says clear as day on the website that if you don't have a membership you can still listen to beats 1.

Because some other services have at least some free "on demand" options, as opposed to Apple's free option being only radio?

 

[Avdija]

What about syncing apple music with ipod classic?

 

[Kurri]

So does Itunes Match still have the radio or is this taking it's place?

 

[elie.fares]

Sounds good as a competitor to spotify.

one thing they DIDN'T mention was how deep the library was? I got the impression that it was NOT "everything for sale on iTunes" or they would have emphasized that.

So what is missing other than the Beatles and Taylor Swift?

Taylor Swift will be on it. Her problem with Spotify was not streaming per se, but rather that subscribers who don't pay get access to her albums. Since Apple Music is paid and doesn't offer a free tier, then her music will be on it.

My question is this: they said it will be available in 100 countries. Did they specify which countries?

 

[SirLance99]

Why are news outlets reporting that apple music doesn't have a "free" tier like the other big names?
Says clear as day on the website that if you don't have a membership you can still listen to beats 1.

I suppose beats 1 will revolve around what billboard top 100-ish type genres but nevertheless, it's free.

Not even close to what Spotify and Pandora have for the free tier. You have absolutely no control over what is played with the Beats One Off station. The others you do have control.

 

[macpanzer]

My question is this: they said it will be available in 100 countries. Did they specify which countries?

Could it be that the availablity will be the same as for current iTunes music store?
And each country will have a different limited catalogue, just like the store?

 

[Soni Sanjay]

At 0:55 in the video for Apple Music, it says "stream from the millions of songs on iTunes, anytime and on-demand." To me this implies any song on iTunes, but I can understand why people would be skeptical of this. My thought is the reason it isn't launching until June 30 is because they're still finalizing deals with other artists/record labels. All Apple has to do is say if you don't let us include your music than go sell your music somewhere else. Correct me if I'm wrong but Spotify doesn't offer the ability to buy music directly, so where are they going to sell music if not in iTunes? Target? I would think every artist would want their music on iTunes. On a side note, I don't know why you think The Beatles and Taylor Swift wouldn't be included. During the keynote, you could at least clearly see Taylor's newest video, Bad Blood, featured in the music video section.

That is a very valid reasoning, they just announced it, but they are still finalizing the deals, hence the June 30 date.

 

[James035]

The offline feature is the only thing is keeping from giving up Spotify, but I think I'm ready, but to be honest, the 320kbps quality offered by them is not good. I can't wait for Apple Music, it just needs the ability to link my account with last fm.

 

[DavisEngeler]

Only thing keeping me from switching from Spotify is the music quality. Their "extreme" is 320 kbits/s. Any confirmation on Apple's?

Not necessarily true. It's "equivalent" to approximately 320kbps. They probably use this wording since the open source Ogg Vorbis doesn't require an equal bitrate to obtain the same fidelity of a higher bitrate MP3. The general ratio of difference seems to be very similar to Apple's AAC. So when you hear 256kbps AAC, don't immediately assume it'll sound worse than a 320kbps MP3.

Here's some extra info on Ogg (Spotify) and AAC (Apple).

 

[Fattytail]

Bloomberg says that Apple is trying to make their whole iTunes Music Library available for Apple Music and that they actually do have Taylor Swift's music on Apple Music, but they don't have the Beatles.



The quote from Re/code says you can do exactly this.



Yes they can.

I'd imagine it'll work very much like Spotify. Offline playback is the biggest feature for me. That alone would be worth the $9.99.

 

[ShadovvMoon]

Knowing Apple, it will probably cost $30/mo for an individual in Australia With the conversion rate, Spotify is only $9/mo

The ability to synchronise it to my Apple Watch may be a deciding factor for me, but I don't have any bluetooth headphones at the moment.

 

[Gasu E.]

Bloomberg says that Apple is trying to make their whole iTunes Music Library available for Apple Music and that they actually do have Taylor Swift's music on Apple Music, but they don't have the Beatles.
.

My understanding of Taylor Swift was that she objected to free streaming services, not paid streaming services. Since Apple offers only paid subscriptions, it seems to be exactly what she was driving for.

 

[Gasu E.]

Why are news outlets reporting that apple music doesn't have a "free" tier like the other big names?
Says clear as day on the website that if you don't have a membership you can still listen to beats 1.

I suppose beats 1 will revolve around what billboard top 100-ish type genres but nevertheless, it's free.

Beats 1 just a radio station.

 

[shandyman]

Why are news outlets reporting that apple music doesn't have a "free" tier like the other big names?
Says clear as day on the website that if you don't have a membership you can still listen to beats 1.

I suppose beats 1 will revolve around what billboard top 100-ish type genres but nevertheless, it's free.

Have you actually looked at what Beats 1 is? Cos your post implies you're lacking on knowledge....