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.
Eddy Cue Talks Apple TV+, Apple News+, and Apple Music in New Interview
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is it exaggerated to state that mostly every service Cue is supervising started more or less disappointingly? To be more precise, the services were not ready yet, need massive overhauls and because of that regain disappointed users. Why not spend more time and do it right in the first place if this experience was made various times before?
Last edited:
I use none of the things this guy is in charge of. Why? Don’t know, just feeling unconnected. Wait. they are curated by businessman who care only about the bottom line? No wonder.
Yeah, others have so much great original content, Apple can't compete with that library of content. They'll need more than a couple of exclusive shows to make people pay consistently.
Amazon and Netflix can afford to dump full series because they have a lot of other content that keeps them paying. If they want "quality" over "quantity", I think they've wrongly estimated what people watch.
As a PhD broscientist from the American Institute of Anecdotes, I can confirm this to be the case.
Last edited:
I say give Apple a chance. People thought Apple Music would fail because Spotify dominated, but Although not perfect, i love Apple Music and they have tried to make some improvements. So far Apple has produced junk TV shows, but maybe they just need to learn. I will give them a chance, the ship may have sailed but Apple is great at playing catch up and creating things people can't live without. It's definitely an uphill battle but I do see a very slight chance that they could pass a few contenders.
60 million lovers of that disastrous music app. Good.
“Love”? Laughable. Too bad that I did not get the chance to use enough of iOS 9 music app on iPad. Not perfect but way better than what we have right now. Also no love to local library user either.
I also wonder. He, instead of Ive, should be the one guy to go as quickly as possible.
Then I wonder why People are so obsessed about 1080P or 2K, certainly the quality difference is not the same degree as of 360P and 720P right? Also Dolby sound and such with much higher bitrate than 160kbps AAC.
Sure, the data consumption will go out of control instantly, but that’s where offline play comes in. Download first, and enjoy later. Apple can even use better lossless codec to reduce the download size, much like HEIC.
Also, hi-res can be priced as add-on or a brand new tier with $39.99/mo for family plan while current AAC remains as-is, just like movies cost more for hi-res than DVD quality.
A side note: there are A TON of good headphones around that will blow up AirPod out of water in terms of sound quality. Just because AirPod is popular does not mean it has nice sound quality. Those are for people who treat music as background noises.
Out of all their new services, I only really care about Apple Arcade. Wish I could get more info about that.
To be fair, it has only been out for 3 months, so if it was that easy they just would have waited a few months and released it after WWDC. I doubt it changes significantly in the first year. Apple is too big to move quickly any more.
To be fair, it has only been out for 3 months, so if it was that easy they just would have waited a few months and released it after WWDC. I doubt it changes significantly in the first year. Apple is too big to move quickly any more.
Now Angela has left, Eddy is the guy to get Apple back on its feet when Cook is tossed overboard.
Show me your blind test where you can tell a difference between a 320kbps and, let's say, 160kbps AAC.
Meanwhile, there are plenty of public blind tests out there where it shows that 128kbps or higher with modern codecs are transparent to most people when compared with the original source (or higher bitrates).
If you have the ears and know what to look for, you can tell the difference. It also helps to have good headphones/iems. 128 kbps will have noticeable lack of clarity vs 256 for compression formats
Most people simply don’t have the ears for this just like how most people can’t tell the different between high video bitrates vs video resolution.
Simply show me a blind test result of you being able to hear the difference. No need for lengthy subjective explanations.
Sorry buddy, go take the test yourself. If you perform poorly, kindly don't assume that other people will perform as poor.
Last edited:
The only news space that should be given to talk about Eddy Cue is when he is either A) Fired, or B) is leaving the company. The fact that he is still there makes me wonder wtf is going on over there.
Nope, you’re the one that implied that you can tell the difference. Proof it. Multitude of public blind listening tests have shown that modern codecs with bitrates of 128kbps and up are transparent to the original source for majority of the population. I doubt that you are a special golden ear type if you don’t even have data to proof it.
Sorry buddy, go take the test yourself. If you perform poorly, kindly don't assume that other people will perform as poor.
Making it an option to appease (an underestimated, IMO) 10% isn’t an unreasonable request. Services like Spotify and Netflix offer the user to choose what quality of streaming Is desired in their app or website settings. Why not add in that extra tier of available quality for audio enthusiasts? Lossless would always be my choice in a WiFi environment.
There are very few people who can distinguish between a 256kbp AAC stream or anything higher, it is definitely not 10%, more like 0.1%.
Now the people who think they can distinguish the difference is probably 10% but people fail these tests all the time and simply won't accept that they can't hear the difference.
Those who can hear the difference are usually audio engineers who know exactly what type of artifacts to look for and even then, they aren't listening to music to enjoy it, they are listening critically for errors, and they have to A/B back and forth and they do not have a 100% success rate because it is just so hard to distinguish.
Talking to audiophiles is like talking to religious people.
I’m not religious, however I am a musician and former (retired at 62) certified Logic Pro trainer. I listen to music for enjoyment but I can, and do, take note of digital artifacts in the right environment that I can’t help hearing. In the car, listening with earbuds on a phone, no, I couldn’t tell the difference - but that is because of the equipment, not the recording. I experience notable ear fatigue, using good headphones, listening to AAC 256 files to the point where I don’t even bother anymore.
I’m as tired of as you are of the debate. I just happened to be on the other side of the fence.
I accept your opinion. You're entitled to it. Now you hopefully can accept mine.
Nope, you’re the one that implied that you can tell the difference. Proof it. Multitude of public blind listening tests have shown that modern codecs with bitrates of 128kbps and up are transparent to the original source for majority of the population. I doubt that you are a special golden ear type if you don’t even have data to proof it.
Nah if you don’t believe it that’s fine. You fit with the majority. It’s not a golden ear either. Majority doesn’t mean 99%. If you want to meet someone with better ears than your majority, just goto CanJAM.