Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Could care less as I'll never use a streaming music app. What would be nice is if Apple can put the regular radio feature on the iPhone as they have with some iPods. I'm referring to the radio as in the one that does not require the internet.
 
Sounds dubious:
1. Tech Crunch wasn't even sure what the remote app icon was.
2. Tim Cook has been raving about the Beats app.
3. Apple has been promoting it in the iTunes Store.
4. They just rolled it out to the AppleTV.

Sounds more like click bait than real information.
 
What is the difference between Beats and the 9000 other apps like Pandora, Slacker, Spotify etc that stream music for a monthly subscription?

Depends on when the question is asked in time:

Before Apple took a shot at the streaming radio market, "we" would have gushed for Pandora and/or Spotify as best available.

Then Apple launched iTunes Radio and "we" took a lot of shots at those two in trying to spin Apple's version as the best version… kind of like how Apple Maps was superior to Google Maps once Apple decided to create it's own maps.

Throughout all of this time, if someone brought up Beats, they would have probably gotten a beat-down.

Then the rumors started flying about Apple in talks to buy Beats. Collectively, this appeared to be viewed as nearly abhorrent. The Apple fans could not see Apple going toward the bottom of the barrel when there were many other choices considered higher quality.

Then, Apple bought Beats. For a while there was a split in fandom (much like iPhone 6 vs. 6+ now) but then it "evolved" until people got to the "but then I tried them out" phase which flowed into general, group support of how great Beats was/is (sometimes it just takes a while for the fans to collectively find their marketing spin to support a shocking Apple move).

I think if Apple had kept them fully separate companies, Beats would have been treated like other businesses Apple purchased but largely kept separate. However, once Apple gave Beats a tab in the store and rewrote the marketing in Apple "wow" copy touting Beats as best right in the Apple website (even though it was obvious there had not been time for Apple to improve the quality of the Beats product mix), "we" had to take that endorsement as proof they were best.;)

So now, "we" have almost embraced Beats as best and this rumor flies. It sort of reminds me of how AT&T got some fandom halo while it was the exclusive carrier associated with iPhone.

And why would anyone pay for any of them when you can get it for free (with ads) from iTunes Radio or ad free if you have iTunes Match?

They are better? If you could get anyone objective to evaluate each option, I doubt they would vote iTunes Radio (or Beats) ahead of Spotify or Pandora. But of course here, iTunes Radio is Apple's cut at it so it must be the best. That's the rules. ;)
 
Last edited:
I was confused by that. But I also hated the fact that iPhoto used to be separate app (with a separate library) on iOS instead of being integrated into the photos app. So that is actually an improvement in my book. As is the integration of Beats music into the regular Music app.

I agree, iPhoto for iOS was awful in execution in terms of integration and synching.

I'm just saying that it's really bad communication about the EOL of a product by Apple AGAIN.
I love their support in general, but these kinds of things shed a terrible light onto a company.

Glassed Silver:mac
 
It would make zero sense for them to shut it down, if they didn't have plans to include it in iTunes in some way.
 
They're not shutting it down, they're just going to change the name.

Changing it from Beats to Beets. The new logo:

beet_w_stem.png
 
Why not? It cost them almost nothing to integrate it.

So, porting an app to the platform is "almost nothing"? Considering time is probably the most valuable thing a development team has, the opportunity cost of integrating something being axed versus working on something else is huge. If the devs on this were the Beats Music iOS devs still waiting to find out where they were going, maybe, but if Apple TV folks had to spend time on this, it was wasted time if Beats Music was going to be canned.

As someone in the industry, it makes zero sense to spend engineering time on something you know is on the way out. Too much to do, and never enough time to do it in as it is.
 
The point of forums is to discuss topics. A big part of that is speculation. :eek:

The source article is nearly always more detailed and often more accurate than MR's summary, but hardly anybody bothers to read the source article. This is something those of us who bother to read the source articles have discovered, and I believe is the point of the comment.
 
LOL!

Just when the Beats haters thought it was safe to rejoice.... MR updates the article and pulls the rug out from under them.
 
Because Beats refers to music. iTunes refers to a million different things under that umbrella which aren't related to music. We have already heard these rumors before so I don't think it out of the question.

I was actually saying if the name "iTunes" was dropped and rebranded as "Beats" it would not make much of a difference to what you'd expect to find just based on the name alone.
 
The source article is nearly always more detailed and often more accurate than MR's summary, but hardly anybody bothers to read the source article. This is something those of us who bother to read the source articles have discovered, and I believe is the point of the comment.

Agreed. My point was that taking out the loose speculation takes the life out of the party.
 
Could care less as I'll never use a streaming music app. What would be nice is if Apple can put the regular radio feature on the iPhone as they have with some iPods. I'm referring to the radio as in the one that does not require the internet.

I can't imagine wanting to go back to picking up broadcasts.
 
Yet again, macbloomers rushes to post "news" which transpires not to be true at all, in desperation to get article views.

I give up - you fail at journalism massively.

----------

Could care less as I'll never use a streaming music app. What would be nice is if Apple can put the regular radio feature on the iPhone as they have with some iPods. I'm referring to the radio as in the one that does not require the internet.


You're sure about that? If you could care less, this demonstrates that your level of caring is a non-zero value, therefore you must care... just a little bit ;) :p

careometer.jpg
 
Shut it down!

They should shut it down, so I can get my money back.

I used to be a happy MOG subscriber for ages and loved MOG. They had a great library, great streaming quality and a really great Artist Radio feature (like Pandora, but with much better control). MOG's library and encoding was noticeably better than that of Spotify.

So, Beats bought MOG and rolled it into Beats Music.

While the library seems to be the same as MOG, Beats removed the Artist Radio and replaced it with the lamest feature in music, called "Sentence," which is basically a really primitive mood setting and overall, completely useless.

Since I liked MOG and assumed that Beats is not run by idiots and it will only get better, I prepaid for a year of the service. But since they removed Artist Radio, I rarely listen to it anymore.

Beats sucks.
 
good news

that would be great for apple to stop connection with those crappy headphones and that company !
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.