Didn't they just release new Windows and OSX beta apps? Yes they did. You can download them here:
http://tidal.com/us/download
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 Still Negotiating With Music Labels Over Streaming Terms Days Before WWDC Launch
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Didn't they just release new Windows and OSX beta apps? Yes they did. You can download them here:
http://tidal.com/us/download
Holy crap, finally!
It looks like a good start, but unfortunately it forces my MBP into discrete graphics mode. At this point, I'm starting to consider if I should just downgrade to a MBP that doesn't have discrete graphics and just run a Mac Pro at home.
It's not like I sit around for hours on end searching for songs one by one.
Recently, for example, I decided I wanted to discover more prog rock music so I started a new Panodra station, seeded it with Rush, Yes and Dream Theater and then hit the 'play' button. There's no way for me to do something so targeted (yet still primarily passive) with any form of radio. Sure, if I found a radio station that had a certain DJ at a certain time that mixed some prog rock into his set list I might hear a new song I like someday. Or I can just listen to my Prog Rock station on Pandora. There is still a waiting process (as you say, great music is hard to come in part because it's great) but it's a much shorter waiting process.Interesting observation. I assume part of the divergence is in how we listen to music vs how we watch TV/movies. Songs are mostly short and don't require our full attention to listen to. On the other hand, watching to a TV show or movie is a much great commitment of our time and focus. I think that's one reason why typically short form entertainment (YT vids just a few minutes long) are so popular. Viewers can get in and get out quickly. Price has to play into it as well. If cable TV was as cheap as streaming music (or if streaming music was as expensive as cable TV) I'm sure people would be signing different tunes (pun intended).
In one of the other threads about TV I mentioned that since I went back to cable (I was a cord cutter the past 5 years) I'm not watching more TV but I am watching a greater variety of TV shows. With so much content being 'pushed' to me I'll channel surf into programming I never even heard of (or thought I would enjoy) and since it's already paid for I'll give it a shot.
Yup.
I'm indignant at how artists made $1 per cd & the ladles took the lion share of the rest. When the MP3 revolution happened, they
Yup. I'm indignant that artists used to make $1 per cd & after the mp3 revolution happened, they made sure they stayed in a position to profit WAY more
Not sure if you also have purchased music stored some place but you could also look at the Roon Labs player. It's not cheap but it seamlessly integrates tidal albums into your existing library. Very cool!
https://roonlabs.com
I'm running it right now and it's using the integrated GPU.
Very well put.
I think streaming appeals to children and young people because they haven't heard much music and want to lap it up. Most of the music they've heard is probably bad. They're hungry for good music.
But when you've established a library, it's easy to browse iTunes and look for gems. Why waste twelve or twenty-four albums a year on music you can't keep?
Music feels like an endless pleasure to the young, but when one gets older, one becomes more discerning. That's why radio is good enough for most people's streaming needs. If you accept that most of the music that you hear from the radio or streaming you will not want to own, then paying for either radio or streaming becomes a questionable thing.
It's best to buy what you really like; with the usage of iTune's star system, one's music will be deeply rewarding. Listen to less music but of high quality.
Last edited:
Ummmm.... I'm sure the labels are somewhat to blame here but greedy artists are too. Taylor swift, Bouncy and Jimmy Z or whatever his name is are spoiled brat, whiners that apparently can't get by on the trillions they make now so they have to suck even more money out of users. Face it, this is a case of extremely rich people fighting over money with very, very rich people. %#^*+ all of them. Their music is terrible anyway.
Besides, YouTube and an MP3 converter do wonders for your music library. Hehehehehe
Another excellent post.
You get to the heart of the matter. Most music written is bad. 'Twas ever thus. That's why history consigns most music to the bin. Streaming implies wading through acres of dross just to get to the one or two gems. Better to go by personal recommendation, radio or make your own.
Now I have a reasonably large library of music, I can listen to it again and again. Good music doesn't get old.
Last edited:
That's one way to look at it. Another way to look at it is that people with power and influence (who could more easily just sit back with the "I got mine so screw the rest of you" attitude and count the checks rolling in) are taking a stand and trying to improve things for all musicians.
Don't get me wrong, but i don't wish Apple any luck with their streaming service. I like Spotify as it is and fear that Apple may have a huge impact on the market which will kill my streaming experience.
Apple will only be able to kill Spotify if it succeeds in creating a better service. If it does you would be better off with Apple. So what would be the issue?
Last edited:
Huh, thanks for the heads up. Never heard of that before. Looks interesting.
There is some lingering fear and conjecture that a "war" is looming between the music services that will result in extensive quantities of exclusive music releases.
TBH, I don't see that going much further than a handful of Pop music exclusives anyways, which I personally can mostly do without.
It doesn't mean Apple will fail and let's hope it won't, but there're many issues right now and not only marketing. Bugs, unfinished software, poor Apple Watch launch, many top people left, features available only in U.S.
Regarding Apple Watch I see how it could be better under Steve. Not mentioning launch, the watch would be better designed. Since Steve passed Ive didn't create anything new. iPhone 6 was an ugly variation of a beautiful iPod touch design. Some Chinese and Nokia phones looks sexier now than the iPhone. Mac Pro... that's not actually a design at all. It's seen especially well in comparison to the previous Mac Pros. Watch use the same curved form of iPhone 6. And recently Ive declared he'll design furniture for new office, that means he's out of fresh ideas for product designs or tired and someone else will do it instead. Right now I think that maybe Steve himself made some rough drafts of new products as he saw it in his mind and Ive just finished and perfected them until Steve was happy. I think under him watch would look more like a thing from the future as the first iPhone was. As the first iMac was. It was cool, you wanted to own it. Also it would have better thought out interface. And under Steve Apple wouldn't move to this amateurish flat design. And better thought out feature set. And of course there would be no real gold options and would be standard adequate prices on bands.
If they'll add more sensors and make smart use of own Health Kit then it may be a bomb. If they won't mess it again. I think watch presentation and launch was so poorly messed up that most people are not even sure about what it really can do, including phone calls. No one clearly explained why someone would need it. They trew a lot of info out of which I mostly remember stupid smiles and Apple Pay. But Apple Pay will take years to be really usable at any location on a daily basis. And watch are available now. Calling and sensors are key features, but it lacks real sensors (hopefully yet) and calling as you said wasn't pushed enough. And design, it should have better, sexier design. As Steve said when they designed iMac or OS X: he wants it to look so that people want to lick it.
Pixar moves on because the same people who created Pixar's products - animation movies, are still there and keep creating. But even then in the end he sold it to Disney so it probably could end up in solid hands and not left on its own. In Apple and NeXT Steve was the guy who "created" products, who was the visionary, who decided what will be next and how it will look and feel and why people would need it. And NeXT had a great product although it struggled to sell it.
Now I see the opposite - design and quality of products slips although it still sells in huge quantities. But it won't last for long if nothing will change. Especially if they not only can't make good products but can't properly promote them.
Last edited: