And that's after he went over to Cupertino and Apple engineers worked on his computer personally, which as we know is a valid option for everybody using Apple Music"Only" 200, huh.. wow, that makes it so much better
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 'Thrilled With the Numbers' as Apple Music Hits 11 Million Users
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Possibly because the entire music industry is involved in Music but not Watch.
Let's be honest, I could be the worlds best salesman if I could give something away free...........these numbers are diabolical - just like the service and software for that matter! It changed loads of my artwork and the only suggestions it's given so are for artists in my collection for albums I already own..............completely pointless......this service makes Mobile Me look impeccable!
Why? I haven't decided yet myself. I am also evaluating Prime Music. Haven't decided which I like better. I doubt I'll keep both.
Probably because it's a waste of bandwidth. You can hear whatever you think you hear, but most of Apple's user base think that they can't hear a difference between 256 kbit/s AAC and lossless 16 bit / 44.1 kHz audio (or 24 bit / 96 kHz ftm, which is a complete ripoff). So maybe a few thousand people would welcome that change, whereas Apple needs to use about 5 times the traffic (or probably a little less when they use lossless compression). I hope you can see how this doesn't really work out for Apple.
I'm saving my judgement for September, but as AM is right now, I am not willing to pay a cent per month. The one and only advantage it has over Spotify is that it lives in the same app as my iTunes library. IF, and that's a big IF, they fix iCloud/Match issues, release a bug-free Android app, increase the cap from 25k to 100k songs, make For You less stupid, unify the interfaces between My Music, New and iTunes Store, maybe I will try and give it a chance (after making two backups of my music on external drives and locking them in a safe).
A $20 price tier could work in this instance though, no? It would deliver a mercy kill to TIDAL.
Apple Music has 1 month, Spotify has almost 8 years... In the first month Spotify had not even 100k free users...
So this comparison makes no sense...
I like it too, and i will keep it after the trial ends... So far, apart from a couple of wrong artworks, I have 0 problems...
Still, it doesn't work out for Apple. Traffic isn't the only problem. Apple does not currently have the lossless versions of the songs on their servers (I think, someone correct me if I'm wrong on this one. In that case, they could actually do that), so what they needed to do is request those files from every label. That is a lot of work. It doesn't really seem worth it, at least to Apple not, apparently.
Indeed, seeing as in the first month of Spotify's existence hardly anyone could tell you what music streaming is.Apple Music has 1 month, Spotify has almost 8 years... In the first month Spotify had not even 100k free users...
So this comparison makes no sense...
I'd say once Apple Music has been around for a year it will make sense to compare numbers.
Apple DOES have the lossless files. When you sell your music on iTunes, you don't do the encoding yourself, thus you have to provide at least 16 Bit 44.1kHz, but higher bit rates and sample rates are preferred. The iTunes Plus encoder is designed in a way that ensures that an audio recording is reproduced EXACTLY the way the artist intended.
By the way, there are only very few people (if any) which can reliably tell iTunes Plus apart from WAV, so stop trying to imply that anyone would need a higher quality format which is nonsense. Nobody can tell the difference. Try for yourself in a double-blind-test using the Mastered for iTunes tools provided by Apple. They are free to use in any AU compatible host application. The EBU and AES would be very interested in meeting you personally, if you can reliably tell 256kbps AAC apart from WAV. Good luck!
Last edited:
Totally agree. I gave Apple Music a try but do not have the slightest idea why anyone would want that. There are millions of songs and I don't feel like having the time or patience to look for something good. The suggestions are dumb as I get many albums suggested which I already purchased over iTunes. Where is the sense in that?
The only thing I like are the curated workout music stations. But would I pay 10 Dollars a month for that? Certainly not.
11M during the 3-month free trial... Let's not judge it just yet. The real testimony will come after the fluffy free period wanes. Let's see where the number goes in November.
I subscribed to the trail subscription for now. But so far I am on the fence whether it's worth $10 a month. I'd be more willing to spend that money if the stream bit rate is a bit higher...
I subscribed to the trail subscription for now. But so far I am on the fence whether it's worth $10 a month. I'd be more willing to spend that money if the stream bit rate is a bit higher...
[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.701961)]I don't know. I didn't sign up for the trial because I like to keep my local (owned) library separate from my cloud library.
What I liked about iTunes Radio (and spotify) is that it is completely separate from my music. I could use them to discover new music and listen to new artists, which led to music purchases. I've had artists where one song was great, but the rest of the album was a dud (to me) and streaming saved me money.
I've spent the last 5 years building an iTunes library of 118 albums, most of which is not part of the iTunes catalog. I've built my own organization and I don't want Apple trying to merge that with streaming. I don't want the hassle of figuring out what's offline and what's online and I don't want to deal with music disappearing.
I also like knowing that I'm building toward something, not renting a massive library that will vanish the moment I stop paying
[/COLOR]
What I liked about iTunes Radio (and spotify) is that it is completely separate from my music. I could use them to discover new music and listen to new artists, which led to music purchases. I've had artists where one song was great, but the rest of the album was a dud (to me) and streaming saved me money.
I've spent the last 5 years building an iTunes library of 118 albums, most of which is not part of the iTunes catalog. I've built my own organization and I don't want Apple trying to merge that with streaming. I don't want the hassle of figuring out what's offline and what's online and I don't want to deal with music disappearing.
I also like knowing that I'm building toward something, not renting a massive library that will vanish the moment I stop paying
[/COLOR]
Not going to argue with the rest, but what does that even mean? Either an encoder is good or it's not. There's no part in an encoder that analyses what the producer intended. It just does what it does, block by block. If you say that this is ensuring that the audio recording is appropriately reproduced, then every modern audio encoder does that. Everything else just sounds like PR garbage.
He's a 'Yes' man. Forestall wasn't.
I will probably drop AM after the free trial. I agree with the messy UI and it just tries to do too much. Most of the music that I enjoy listening to, I already own as I have a huge collection from my mobile DJ days. I don't even buy $120 worth of music in a year. Really haven't heard that much 'new' music that I find palatable. Tried to give TS a chance, but don't care for her and her bloated marketing. She will fade soon. Her switch to Pop, to me, was just a money grab as there are more 'tweens out there for that genre.
Iovine just needs to stay in the background.
I'm wondering how Apple find acceptable to allow artists to post middle fingers and such words as "f*ck" (without asterisk) on Apple Music Connect. Considering they're selling family plans and kids and teens are using this service also.
Emailed Apple about this but got no reply.
Emailed Apple about this but got no reply.
Going back to the original article… the USA Today piece can't really be called an interview… more like a choice few quotes from Eddy, surely?
No, you are missing the point, on Spotify my curated playlists that I've amassed over the years are still accessible and I can listen to it, I don't have to pay to keep listening to my music. On Apple Music if you stop paying, you lose access, you can no longer listen to your music for free like you can on Spotify.
This means that whenever you want premium features on Spotify, you can switch any time and get premium features, but if you decide to take a break or cut down on subscription expenses, you WILL NOT lose access to all your music like in Apple Music, nor be pressured to pay $.99-1.29 per track to keep listening.
I must say I'm surprised by the reactions here. I'm a long time Spotify user so I haven't even bothered to use Apple Music yet, but I was pretty concerned Apple would dominate this space. Spotify really is an awesome service. In over three years I haven't really had a single issue I can recall. Great selection and it always seems to work - I use it in my car every day and it never skips out or crashes or anything. I'm loving the new Discover weekly playlists as well.
Apple Music has 1 month, Spotify has almost 8 years... In the first month Spotify had not even 100k free users...
So this comparison makes no sense...
You're right, Spotify has pioneered this market almost on their own and gotten millions of people to pay a subscription fee - including people like me who were once vehemently opposed to the very idea of it. 8 years later Apple tries to muscle into this space and steal their customers - but they can't even get it right even though the hard work as mostly been done for them. Not good, Apple.
Apple Music is like Android in 2008, if Android didn't come out until 2015 and was up against the iPhone 6.
I've been equally using Spotify and Apple Music for the past month. I can readily say that Apple Music has yet to impress me. They continually suggest urban music for me to listen to (I listen to much more than that). Their "curated" playlisted have done nothing for me. At this point, I'm sticking with Spotify since I'm a bigger fan of their playlists and the "Discover Weekly" playlists that come out every Monday have been spot on. I don't speak for everyone, but in my eyes, Apple has a lot of work cut out for them.
Seriously, aren't they really good? I was skeptical on week 1 but by the end of the playlist I must have created new playlists for half the artists they suggested. A lot of them were just deep cuts too, stuff with a handful of listens I never would have found otherwise.
I totally admit I'm in love with Spotify and I think it's one of the greatest things to come around in a while. I was hugely skeptical of streaming music services five years ago, but as a music lover with broad taste I quickly became utterly obsessed with it. Truly doesn't matter to me that I don't "own" the music - I hardly ever dig into my old 20k song deep iTunes library anymore. The discovery aspect is so much more important to me. It's like browsing the web, you just start listening and dig deeper and deeper.