You are crazy because download and streaming both are options to choose. I'll fix your comment: "I prefer to purchase and download over streaming".
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 Tops 20 Million Subscribers, Eddy Cue Says Exclusives Will Continue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Okay, you're crazy.
If you mean that the only method for you to get music is "buy-your-music."
If you mean that you use streaming as a method to discover new music, and then once you've heard it you purchase it...
Well, then, I couldn't agree more. I've had friends ask me if I've heard.... (for this example, a Tribe Called Red). I haven't, so I turn to streaming, listen to it for a week or two, and if I still like it, I buy it.
And I did like it... Who knew I would like Dub Stepped First Nation music? But, I bought it, and there it is...
[doublepost=1481113333][/doublepost]
If I were to set your comment back 40 years, this is what it would sound like...
"Yeah I was looking at an FM radio for my car, it was too expensive. Shame cause it was the better looking radio."
Have you ever played the game Papa Sangre? It is designed to be played by someone that can not see the physical interface.
That is how an audio player should be designed. So intuitive that what the interface looks like, is irrelevant (and, like in the case of Papa Sangre, doesn't even have to be there).
What it looks like, should be the absolute least important consideration. Just something to think about.
[doublepost=1481113464][/doublepost]
How would that be going against net neutrality? It's a level playing field, and anyone could play on it. Apple negotiates their deal with providers. Then Google does then Spotify...
A further example is the AT&T/Verizon debacle in the news. AT&T was charging for data for everyone's video service, but their own. Verizon did the same thing. If they had opened up the opportunity to everyone, there would be no case.
Net Neutrality is not supposed to mean "equally poor service for everyone," though that will be the
inevitable conclusion. What it is supposed to mean is that anything done for one service can be done for another. However, I have yet to see that as the basis (as you demonstrated with your comment).
[doublepost=1481114681][/doublepost]
You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about.
First, T-Mobile controls their network. So yes, they can whitelist every provider they work with. They can whitelist any provider. However, THEY HAVE TO HAVE A STANDARD OR EVERYONE GETS WHITELISTED. Then there is no reason for the whitelist.
The result is that you degrade service, because this isn't a fairy tale where things are done with magic. Telecommunications is a finite resource. An OC-192 can only carry a finite amount of data. And when it is filled, you have to buy another. And yes OC-192's get filled. That's why you could buy something called a Ciena to do DWDM. That's also why OC-768's exist.
Or, we could look at this the other way. Connections get blacklisted, I have personally (yesterday in fact) put in place rules in a firewall that control routes used by the equipment. I even blocked some traffic. I was protecting the network at the time. Using your silly putty definition of "net neutrality" I would have been forced to allow that traffic through my network. Someone, somewhere, paid to put that traffic on the network. We deem it harmful so we blocked it. I (my employer) made the selection for someone else.
As I said before, the concept of Net Neutrality is not forcing equally bad service for all users, but is in making sure that if one service gets an opportunity, every service has that opportunity. Your understanding of net neutrality is terrifying. I'm scared that the people that try to enforce it will end up thinking the way you do, effectively destroying the telecom industry.
This is what happens when people that know nothing about a technology try to make up and enforce rules to regulate it...
What do I do for a living? I work in the core. I'm an information Security Engineer that started as a Network Engineer. I'm published, I have a degree, certifications, and the skills to pay the bills.
Last edited:
You may be a network engineer, but perhaps not a legal scholar? IANAL, but net neutrality "Net neutrality is the principle that Internet service providers and governments regulating the Internet should treat all data on the Internet the same, not discriminating or charging differentially by user, content, website, platform, application, type of attached equipment, or mode of communication."
If certain companies (e.g. apple, google) and data types (e.g. streaming music) get preferential treatment, through for example, better data caps, lower costs, then it's a very slippery slope. The large players (such as Apple) can make deals with carriers such that newer companies are noncompetitive. So, yes it's good for the consumer in the short term ("hey free data for Apple Music") it's bad in the long term ("Oh, it's all hip-hop, all the time on AM, and now ClassicsMusic (TM) has gone bankrupt because they can't compete with AM's pricing advantage, that was indirectly afforded by the profits of selling X million 600USD iPads in a Government - School deal")
If you don't see that as a problem - then you are shortsighted!
As the bits cost the same regardless of whether they are music bits or other type of data bits, then I think that net neutrality is the fairest and LEAST OPEN TO CORRUPTION and BEST FOR THE CONSUMER IN THE LONG TERM
Moreoever, there is no such thing as a free lunch - those cost "savings" are passed on to other users. In fact the packet inspection needed (esp. if using peer-to-peer type streaming services) will cause an increase in provider costs, which will then be added to my bill as some BS "service charge", so that I can subsidise AM users?
I love Apple Music...since subscribing, I have discovered all kinds of great music that I wouldn't have otherwise. The curated playlists that appear in the For You tab solve the "what do I want to listen to today?" dilemma. Also having access to gobs and gobs of music is amazing. Yesterday I created a Rolling Stones from Start to Finish playlist and was able to add every one of their 25 albums to play consecutively. My wife who is not typically impressed by new technology LOVES Apple Music because it always has what she is looking for.
It does not matter that they accept everyone on request, the point is that they require approval and facilitation on an individual basis. Content providers are compelled to contact T-Mobile, which presupposes that they even know about this. This already puts smaller and foreign players in a disadvantaged spot, as they now have and it affects consumers that use these providers instead of the big music streamers. Secondly, T-Mobile clearly discriminates between types of media. It is fantastic if you are a heavy music streamer, but what if you buy songs on iTunes or like listening to podcasts or viewing videos instead? T-Mobile discourages you from doing that by incentivising you to use the network how they want.
I do not understand what you are writing here. T-Mobile has to know which bits come from which content provider or which bits are music streaming. This requires white-listing of specific IP addresses or packet inspection. Regardless of standard, they are prioritising certain content and are shaping the flow of data on their networks, making it less attractive for other types of content to be distributed.
You should elaborate on the ‘inevitable’ conclusion. It is not evident at all.
If this were about network congestion or quality of service, then why on earth would T-Mobile even incentivise this? Can you establish that T-Mobile does this purely for these reasons?
I think you do not understand that net neutrality does not just apply homogeneously to particular types of media or content, it applies to any kind of content that the network can support. Net neutrality aims for an open Internet that is shaped by content providers and content consumers. Giving every service an equal opportunity is exactly what net neutrality is all about.
ISPs are there to facilitate the development of network technology and provide the infrastructure. They should not have any say over the content that is going through their networks, because that puts them in an advantageous position and harms the natural development of the Internet.
I know very well what I am talking about, because this practice has been held unlawful in countries such as the Netherlands, which have pioneered legislation in this area and have a very healthy network (as do many European countries). The EU has adopted a similar scheme, pending regulatory implementations. I can understand completely that ISPs do not always have the capability to maintain the same quality of service and I can accept temporary restrictions (this is what the EU has chosen to enshrine in law as well). There are other alternatives to manage congestion. However, T-Mobile ostensibly uses this practice strategically, irrespective of local networking conditions or apparent quality-of-service considerations.
I could go on about this, but you really should read this article by the Electronic Frontier Foundation. They give several more reasons why this is generally not good and rarely justified.
I wonder if Eddy saw this post from Jim Dalrymple. Ouch.
http://www.loopinsight.com/2016/12/...0-million-subscribers-by-focusing-on-hip-hop/
http://www.loopinsight.com/2016/12/...0-million-subscribers-by-focusing-on-hip-hop/
If you are only going to listen to the same albums or songs month to month then I don't blame you. If it's, "I want to feel better by supporting the artist through buying the album, CD / Vinyl / whatever." More power too you. But, for others that won't be the same. I mix the two. I look at Apple Music this way: it's $9.99 for 30 days to demo as many albums as you want hassle free. With most albums costing $9.99, listening to just one album (or 10 songs) pays for the sub -- most albums or songs I won't listen to more then once, if I listen to the whole album or song at all. Others I like enough to buy. Some I want to listen to again, but don't want to buy, however, won't miss if I drop my sub. Because, duh, yea there are other ways to listen to it if I want; likely YouTube. It's great when I get a desire to listen to some one off song too, which I don't want to listen to more then once. "Siri, play "<whatever>" on Apple Music.
The three free months has been a gold mine for finding music I like. I don't have to wonder if I'll like an album. I just listen to it and make the determination for myself. If there is only one good song, I just buy that one.
I'm on my first paid month now. If I don't think I'm getting value I'll drop my sub. In that case, however, I'll still have a treasure trove of stay with me paid-for music.
<scratches head> Not sure what you're trying to "fix," McFly. I said that I'm a "buy-your-music advocate." That means that I think it's a better – not preferred – better choice to make than streaming. Why? Because artists are getting ripped off by streaming, and the music industry has been decimated by it. Streaming has caused massive layoffs at labels. Streaming means independent artists who used to rely on funding from labels have to pony up $90 grand to record, promote and distribute their own record before even seeing a dime. Selling one $10 CD is the equivalent of streaming one song 2,000 times. Streaming means instead of a staff designer, they cheap-it-out to a freelancer that used to be able to save for his kids college but is now wondering how to pay the mortgage. That's streaming. Buy your music.
Last edited: