Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine Talk Apple Music in Series of Interviews

[HenryDJP]

So it seems that joining Apple Music and continuing to pay for iTunes Match would be pretty redundant except for the small number of songs I have that aren't in the iTunes store. Do I have that right?

From what I've been reading you're spot on.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

This just seems like looking for a non existent issue.

With music you bought DRM was a issue because, if you bought it, you might reasonably expect to be able to do what you liked with it.

But with streaming, you don't own the music, so it is reasonable to have some DRM (or variant of) for the system to know if you are currently subscribing or not.

OK, so is DRM "a non-existent issue" or is it "reasonable to have some DRM"?

I'm not attacking Apple- just asking a question about how it works. I understand something different has to be done with streaming files and I'm seeking insights into this part of things.

 

[thekeyring]

Still trying to figure out what $9.99 buys me. What is free without a subscription and what is added once I subscribe? What happens to the current iTunes Radio....does it go away? Sounds like Apple Radio includes Match....what if I already subscribe to Match? Will Match continue to be offered as a standalone service? Can subscribed music be downloaded or only streamed? Can it be synced to old or non wireless iPods (shuffles, nanos, classics)?

I'll answer what I know:

Beats One is free. All the content you own you can still listen to as well, obviously. You're paying for the ability to stream songs you don't own, with curated playlists.

iTunes Match is still a stand alone service (so you can pay for it without buying into Apple Music). However, when you pay for Apple Music, you get all the features of iTunes Match.

You can download and save playlists offline, so you could use Apple Music on an iPod touch and save a playlist for when you're out of WiFi range.

Apple Music only works on iOS devices, Macs, Windows PCs, Apple TV, Apple Watch and Android. So no, you can't sync it to an iPod nano, classic or shuffle.

 

[tentales]

Been to Hell and back trying to figure it out but I am pretty sure it's on apples end. Both my Wife's iPhone 6 and my 6+ exhibit the same behavior over lightning to usb hard wire, bluetooth and airplay. Sound check is off and there is no volume limit set in settings. iTunes radio is the only app that exhibits this behavior. I ask you to compare Spotify and iTunes radio and tell me you don't notice a difference. Googling seems to turn up many people with the same issue.

I believe you. Except for a brief trial, I don't use iTunes Radio. I'm in Canada, we have horrendous data caps / prices here. I use free Spotify at home and my own library in the car via bluetooth.
So basically you're saying, it's just iTunes Radio that's soft vs playing back your own music on the same device ?
I'm on an iPhone 5C, so can't compare to your 6.

I just did a quick check here on my Mac between iTunes Radio & Spotify and can't notice much difference in volume, difference must be unique to the iPhone.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

So it seems that joining Apple Music and continuing to pay for iTunes Match would be pretty redundant except for the small number of songs I have that aren't in the iTunes store. Do I have that right?

Conceptually, if one is going to own both, they should flex the part of Match that isn't a part of Music- the part where any old song <256kbps can be updated to 256kbps and downloaded to your local drive. In short, get your whole collection up to 256kbps AAC with Match. Then, cancel Match if you are going to be a Music subscriber because the other benefit of Match will be redundant. I don't see any reason to have both but I see good reasons to have either.

 

[capuzino]

UK pricing????

.. Given that unlike hardware there is no import duties, transport costs or tax issues, then a straight currency transfer is appropriate, Apple..? Yes?

$9.99 = £6.49 today. So can you confirm this as pricing? And that you won't do the mercenary thing of $->£ and charging £9.99.....

I'm pretty sure it will be £9.99 in the UK and 9.99€ in EU countries. Just like with other streaming services.
Also, in the area of EU, VAT is charged on digital goods too. Since 2015.

 

[WJKramer]

I believe you. Except for a brief trial, I don't use iTunes Radio. I'm in Canada, we have horrendous data caps / prices here. I use free Spotify at home and my own library in the car via bluetooth.
So basically you're saying, it's just iTunes Radio that's soft vs playing back your own music on the same device ?
I'm on an iPhone 5C, so can't compare to your 6.

I just did a quick check here on my Mac between iTunes Radio & Spotify and can't notice much difference in volume, difference must be unique to the iPhone.

It does seem to be unique to the iPhone. I agree that the mac does not exhibit this issue. On iOS my saved music with sound-check off is on par with Spotify however iTunes radio seems to use a form of sound-check or "normalization" that is not user selectable nor tied to the sound check option in iOS settings.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

iTunes Match is still a stand alone service (so you can pay for it without buying into Apple Music). However, when you pay for Apple Music, you get all the features of iTunes Match.

Are you sure? I didn't see where it would take your old <256kbps music files (you own) and upgrade them to 256kbps AAC files like Match does. Are you sure a Music subscription does this too?

 

[thekeyring]

So it seems that joining Apple Music and continuing to pay for iTunes Match would be pretty redundant except for the small number of songs I have that aren't in the iTunes store. Do I have that right?

Are you sure? I didn't see where it would take your old <256kbps music files (you own) and upgrade them to 256kbps AAC files like Match does. Are you sure a Music subscription does this too?

As far as I know, iTunes Match is a part of Apple Music. If you're paying for Apple Music, consider yourself an iTunes Match customer.

How does Apple Music know what songs are in my personal library?

With an Apple Music membership, your entire library lives in iCloud. We compare every track in your collection to the Apple Music library to see if we have a copy. If we do, you can automatically listen to it straight from the cloud. If you have music that’s not in our catalog, we upload those songs from iTunes on your Mac or PC. It’s all in iCloud, so it won’t take up any space on your devices.

Does Apple Music work with iTunes Match?

Yes. Apple Music and iTunes Match are independent but complementary.

Quote from: https://www.apple.com/music/membership/ (Scroll down to: Questions? Here are our liner notes.)

 

[johngordon]

OK, so is DRM "a non-existent issue" or is it "reasonable to have some DRM"?

I'm not attacking Apple- just asking a question about how it works. I understand something different has to be done with streaming files and I'm seeking insights into this part of things.

I meant in terms of the streaming service it shouldn't be an issue that the customer should take issue with.

When you buy music, the transaction takes place, after which the music belongs to you. DRM should play no further part in the proceedings. You bought the music, you own the music, DRM should have no place telling you when and where you can listen to that music.

That's not really the case with a streaming service because the consumer only ever rents the music. So there is a place for some DRM because the system will always need to know if you are currently subscribing or not. If you are, you get access to the music. If you are not, you do not get access to the music. In order for that to work there needs to be something in place to establish which, be it DRM, or some variant of DRM.

In short:

Buying music outright - DRM should not be required.

Subscribing to a music streaming service? Something needs to be in place to establish whether or not someone is a subscriber, and grant or prevent access as required.

 

[Sonmi451]

Funny how he says radio is "so manufactured" but the sample I heard from one of the DJ's sounds like every other Radio station. "Hey it's your boy..." "LA, London, New York". "Random artist voiceover". Can we just chill the **** out and play some music. Everything doesn't have to be an in your face production with nonstop sound effects.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

As far as I know, iTunes Match is a part of Apple Music. If you're paying for Apple Music, consider yourself an iTunes Match customer.

Quote from: https://www.apple.com/music/membership/ (Scroll down to: Questions? Here are our liner notes.)

I don't read "independent but complementary" like you seem to be doing. I bet Match & Music are redundant as services except for the 256kbps upgrade of any owned files < 256kbps. I bet Music (subscription) won't upgrade owned music. If true, it seems anyone interested in that should get Match, upgrade their library to 256kbps and then drop Match for Music if they want to be a long-term subscriber.

Note that conceptually, the Music subscriber with <256kbps music in their library not synced to their iDevice will be listening to a streamed version of their <256kbps songs at 256kbps. Only later, when they choose NOT to be a subscriber would they find themselves listening to <256kbps music again if they play those songs. If Music is very popular, Apple might drop Match (unlikely but maybe), so it seems anyone who has not taken advantage of that part of Match yet should do so.

 

[milo]

Glad to see those hard hitting journalists pressed them on the difference between the "Apple Music" library and the "iTunes" library, if there is any. That seems to be a sticking point for a lot of people. Are we getting it all or not?

They've already covered that over at Bloomberg and The Verge, probably some other places. Not sure why it hasn't got a mention here at MR since it's an important part of deciding whether to get it or not.

To answer your question, no we're not getting it all. Sounds like it will be about 30 million songs which is most of the iTunes store but there are still some artists not included, notably The Beatles.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Is that a guess or do you KNOW that artists like the Beatles are not included?

 

[thekeyring]

I don't read "independent but complementary" like you seem to be doing. I bet Match & Music are redundant as services except for the 256kbps upgrade of any owned files < 256kbps. I bet Music (subscription) won't upgrade owned music. If true, it seems anyone interested in that should get Match, upgrade their library to 256kbps and then drop Match for Music if they want to be a long-term subscriber.

Note that conceptually, the Music subscriber with <256kbps music in their library not synced to their iDevice will be listening to a streamed version of their <256kbps songs at 256kbps. Only later, when they choose NOT to be a subscriber would they find themselves listening to <256kbps music again if they play those songs. If Music is very popular, Apple might drop Match (unlikely but maybe), so it seems anyone who has not taken advantage of that part of Match yet should do so.

Actually, the "independent but complementary" was the most confusing part. It was the paragraph about how Apple Music works with existing content. If you stop paying for iTunes Match do you get to keep the higher quality music from the iTunes store?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I can't tell for sure. For the parts of Match that involve streaming play, it looks like Music is the same, PLUS granting access to tons of songs that you don't own.

But Match also has that 256kbps upgrade (your <256kbps songs) benefit that I haven't yet seen confirmed in Music. And how that works differently is that YES, if you upgrade your <256kbps songs, download them to your local drive and then let Match lapse, you keep those songs (at 256kbps).

If that upgrade feature is also in Music, I don't see the point in owning both Match and Music.

 

[Momus]

I subscribed to iTunes Match here in the UK because of the promise of ad-free iTunes Radio, which never materialised.

 

[Black Belt]

Your cell carriers love streaming. Extra data charges!!

 

[Menopause]

Well, goodness.

Just watched the keynote. It focused the mind. Here are my thoughts:

Craig Federighi was brilliant. He should be CEO of Apple. He's a superb presenter and everyone loves him. He comes across as passionate about everything he presents. If all this keynote had been him, it would have been excellent. We remember Steve Jobs so much as a presenter without peer. Federighi is his natural successor. A very different presenter to Jobs, but exuding the crucial ingredient: passion.

Tim Cook should either return to COO or become a politician. The three videos were clearly his personal input and checked all the boxes for inclusiveness and diversity ********. They were also vacuous and nauseating. Cook has lost his purpose. He is the voice of authority behind everything, but never seems to have a stake in Apple. I never get the feeling that he really gets passionate about anything, apart from the iPad.

The Apple Watch is being siloed by Apple in readiness for its impending failure. Its segment felt boxed in and separate from the rest of the keynote, and not in a good way. Kevin Lynch is the most unsuitable voice of it. He is as far from fashionable as you could possibly imagine, for what Apple describes as its most personal product yet. I note that the Apple Watch got no significant mention or enthusiasm from anyone else on stage, even Tim Cook.

Apple Music. Jimmy Iovine's presentation was the most sustained ******** marketing verbiage I have ever come across outside comedy. That said, the family plan is remarkably good value at $2.50 per month per person. On the other hand, it shows what poor value the single person subscription is, which costs 300% more. I don't think the service will be a success.

Generally, I like a lot of iOS 9 and OS X.11. Shift key and lower-case keyboard notwithstanding, this is the Apple I love. Apple Watch and Apple Music are the dark side, and are the wrong direction for Apple.

The fact that you judge the qualification of a CEO of the largest technology company of the world by the way they present a 45 min long keynote on stage convinces me of your belief in the ludicrous garbage you compiled above. You have next to no idea of how business management works. If I were you I'd get off your judgmental high horse and consider not embarrassing myself this way.

 

[cmwade77]

I think that Eddy is exactly right about families being a big opportunity.

I've been fine with the idea of $10/month for unlimited listening. I've been wanting this to exist for at least the last 10 years. I did originally have a subscription to Rhapsody way back when. I tried Spotify.

The sticking point for me was to provide access to the whole family. When Spotify started offering the discount for additional subscriptions to make it $14.99 for my wife and me, I almost jumped back in but that would have left my two kids out of the mix.

$14.99 for all four of us is what I've been waiting for. I'll jump on the free trial on day one and depending on how it goes, I expect that I'll sign up as a paying customer as soon as the trial is over.

OR you can use Amazon Prime Music and have the ENTIRE family (even more than 6) for less than $9 per month AND you get Amazon Prime Shipping, Video and all the other benefits.

So, sorry, I just don't see this being the big deal they are making it out to be.

 

[cmwade77]

Your cell carriers love streaming. Extra data charges!!

Except TMobile, they don't count most streaming music services against your data caps, so I don't see this being a problem for those on their services.

 

[NY Guitarist]

Is there ever any mention of whether the artists make any more money or, as I suspect, probably earn less from their content?

Seems like just another corporate hype BS festival, with the big players patting each other on the back.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Except TMobile, they don't count most streaming music services against your data caps, so I don't see this being a problem for those on their services.

If that's true, let's see if that policy persists after this goes live on iPhones.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Is there ever any mention of whether the artists make any more money or, as I suspect, probably earn less from their content?

Some of us are implying it and there is the quote in the original post (also implying)...

Iovine added commentary suggesting a music service needs to be "a win for everybody." "We wanted to give artists a place where there's a rhyme and a reason," he said. "Where there's a payoff! And not just a financial payoff, but an emotional payoff. A creative payoff."

But I haven't seen any confirmations of this being better for the artists (pocketbooks) unless you consider that a confirmation.

 

[xmichaelp]

Why doesn't someone ask about the streaming quality?

Probably same as itunes 256 vbr aac. More than enough.