You just gave me a list of things that you don't think are innovative. I'll ask the question again, what is you're definition of innovation?
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.
Jimmy Iovine Talks Apple Music Exclusives Criticism, Says Service Was 'Too Ambitious'
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Good point for some. Choice is great though.
Thank you so much. I didnt even know I had it. Forget to cancel prime so I am trying out all of its services before I cancel and get some of my money back. Tried it quickly but it seems like a decent option.
I hate that they try to force Apple Music on me. Every search starts out with Apple Music which I don't have or want.
Could be, but Apple seems to still make a lot of money with their mediocre products. There ecosystem is still too strong. I would switch to a PC tomorrow if I believed it would be stable and not get a virus that would wipe everything out. Apple doesn't have any great apps I would be losing, only their stable environment. However, my company's tech guy is still pushing windows 7, because of the multitude of issues he faces with 10.
If google could get better control of their ecosystem I would switch, but they can't.
One of the great features of Spotify is the ability to have public playlists. I would often search for a song I want to hear and see it listed on other people'spublic playlists. Then I'd be curious about what other songs they had in their playlists. Good fun and a great way to discover new music from people with similar tastes.
I'm still really surprised that one can't have public/private playlists on Apple Music or the ability to subscribe to non-canonized playlists.
Too expensive for you perhaps.
But there is no way on God's green earth that $10 a month is ever going to be objectively too expensive.
You just gave me a list of things that you don't think are innovative. I'll ask the question again, what is you're definition of innovation?
In answer to Rogifan's post:
You may want to ask that question to all the posters who keep citing "No innovation" from Apple.
When I asked one specifically to name some that s/he has, the answer was s/he didn't want to give away any secrets. LOL.
To ask for innovation for mature product lines will only lead to frustration.
Adding faster memory, larger SSDs to a MacBook are not innovations. For me that is technical progress.
Innovation means to do something that was done a certain way in a totally different way, simplifying or enabling us to do things better, faster more easily.
The iPhone fit that bill. Phone, music player and internet in your pocket.
iPad was somewhat
pencil soem of it
The watch maybe one day.
The car project will have innovative parts, but in itself not be innovative.
Even the iPhone 6 has some innovation with the 2 lenses and let's not forget the software.
That word is thrown around way too much and so far nobody has mentioned the next "one more thing".
If innovation was that easy, we'd all be doing it and swimming in $$$.
In answer to Rogifan's post:
You may want to ask that question to all the posters who keep citing "No innovation" from Apple.
When I asked one specifically to name some that s/he has, the answer was s/he didn't want to give away any secrets. LOL.
To ask for innovation for mature product lines will only lead to frustration.
Adding faster memory, larger SSDs to a MacBook are not innovations. For me that is technical progress.
Innovation means to do something that was done a certain way in a totally different way, simplifying or enabling us to do things better, faster more easily.
The iPhone fit that bill. Phone, music player and internet in your pocket.
iPad was somewhat
pencil soem of it
The watch maybe one day.
The car project will have innovative parts, but in itself not be innovative.
Even the iPhone 6 has some innovation with the 2 lenses and let's not forget the software.
That word is thrown around way too much and so far nobody has mentioned the next "one more thing".
If innovation was that easy, we'd all be doing it and swimming in $$$.
Sadly that's now a binary love or no. Which fits better with the mobile ethos of course.
But yeah, if you want granular ratings you are locked to your desktop/laptop now.
I don't thinkk the problem is that apple hasn't release another "iPhone" style shocking product.
it's just that every single earnings call, every single big media event, and when he sits in conversation, almost all the executives of apple, everytime constantly repeat the "Amazing pipeline" and "most innovative products ever" statement over and over again. But haven't.
there's nothing wrong with not having industry shaking products every year. i'm not harping on Apple at all about that. I'm harping on the hyperbole and overly marketing sanitise verbiage without any results that Tim and his board repeat ad nauseum without delivering
Iovine and Cue clearly don't use their own service. Anybody at Apple who would, would improve its most elementary idiosyncrasies and terrible UI.
Apparently they own no music either, or they would have treated that differently.
"Curated playlists" with human editors were an unfullfilled promise (or an outright lie) with the same result
They are clueless, overpaid tads that have their mouth full of promises, promises of people that get everything paid for and do not have a clue what expectations they drive. Even no clue what paid work is.
Spoiled kids of the wrong kind. With them, and without Tim Cook getting things sorted out, the pipeline is dry.
Apparently they own no music either, or they would have treated that differently.
"Curated playlists" with human editors were an unfullfilled promise (or an outright lie) with the same result
They are clueless, overpaid tads that have their mouth full of promises, promises of people that get everything paid for and do not have a clue what expectations they drive. Even no clue what paid work is.
Spoiled kids of the wrong kind. With them, and without Tim Cook getting things sorted out, the pipeline is dry.
Last edited:
Ahhhh. That's true, albeit shuffle cues 100 songs, so I'm not sure what you were expecting. At least you can still rearrange them!
Last edited:
Love Apple music for discovery. For that alone it's worth it. I used to use iTunes the same way, but you were limited to parts of songs. I've found lots of new (to me) music and bands that I would not have otherwise known about. Also the new app design is an improvement.
The mobile app is great now. The desktop version sucks.
Mobile App = Apple Music
Desktop =Spotify
Mobile App = Apple Music
Desktop =Spotify
I do own a Sonos system. I was looking to buy more speakers to create a surround sound speaker system for my second tv, but it's still pretty pricey, even when you already own parts of the system. I have been pretty happy with it though.
My next phone will have as much memory as I can afford to buy. But since I also take a lot of pictures I'm not sure whether music or pictures will win the allotment battle. That's for next year anyway.
"The rights holders, whoever they are, have to do something, because there's a lot of free [music] out there, and it's a problem," he told BuzzFeed News.
A problem for whom, Iovine? A problem for people like you, millionaires and billionaires, and people who work for millionaires and billionaires? In this one small analysis we can clearly detect the standing position of Iovine and his employers, and it most definitely is NOT with the general populace or clients of his/theirs.
Yes, there are one million or more reasons why people should pay for music and not receive it free. Please feel free to post your angst about your dire need to stamp out free music. Thanks.
A problem for whom, Iovine? A problem for people like you, millionaires and billionaires, and people who work for millionaires and billionaires? In this one small analysis we can clearly detect the standing position of Iovine and his employers, and it most definitely is NOT with the general populace or clients of his/theirs.
Yes, there are one million or more reasons why people should pay for music and not receive it free. Please feel free to post your angst about your dire need to stamp out free music. Thanks.
You can remove the connect button. This is from Apple Insider
To get rid of Connect, open the iOS Settings app, choose General, then Restrictions. If you haven't enabled Restrictions on your iPhone or iPad, you can do so by creating a new 4-digit pin code. After Restrictions are enabled, uncheck Apple Music Connect. This will instantly remove the Connectmenu from the Music app.Jul 2, 2015
What I miss is being able to queue the next few tracks. I'm sure you used to be able to select a track to play next, and add others to that queue.
So, for example, if you were half way through an album, you could queue up three songs from another album to play next.
But now all you can do is set one to play next, and others to the end of the list. So it would play the play next track, then play the rest of the album currently playing, and then play the next two songs you wanted.
So, for example, if you were half way through an album, you could queue up three songs from another album to play next.
But now all you can do is set one to play next, and others to the end of the list. So it would play the play next track, then play the rest of the album currently playing, and then play the next two songs you wanted.
Exactly! Apple has had a "We'll do even better next year…" attitude for a fews years now. Well, next year is here…
Alexa is now mass marketed and doing better than the aging Siri. Apple TV has only 12% of the streaming device market and Roku has just delivered the final blow this week (those new models rock). The iPhone 7 is uninspired and offers nothing truly significant over the 6S / Android looking much better side by side. Apple hasn't updated most of their computers in over 18 months. Apple Music is still apologizing for sucking and hasn't even reached 50% of Spotify's user base. We can continue…
Imagine back in the day only being able to buy certain music artists at Walmart, and then only some others at Target, and then only certain exclusive artists at Tower Records and HMV, and having to run all over town to build up a music collection of all the artists you like because every corporation feels they need to lure people into their stores by whoring out musicians for top dollar. Add to that the idea that Walmart's CD couldn't be played on a Target CD player or that Tower Records used square CD's with rounded corners because they thought that would be cool. So it's not only that you have to buy exclusive artists at various vendors, but you also had to buy the exclusive devices to be able to play that music.
I get incredibly annoyed by the idea that because it's all digital today that we have to spread our wealth around to numerous subscription services, platforms and digital stores to get access to the same content that used to be available and everywhere and playable on any device.
I am glad, at least, certain corporations are waking up and ending this so companies like Universal Music trying to eliminate exclusivity and make their products available anywhere is a step in the right direction.
If Apple focused on a bettering the overall experience and perhaps competitive pricing, then that is how they will make Apple Music good, but its not going to happen just by having only certain Beyonce or Taylor Swift albums that are pirated two minutes after they are released.
I get incredibly annoyed by the idea that because it's all digital today that we have to spread our wealth around to numerous subscription services, platforms and digital stores to get access to the same content that used to be available and everywhere and playable on any device.
I am glad, at least, certain corporations are waking up and ending this so companies like Universal Music trying to eliminate exclusivity and make their products available anywhere is a step in the right direction.
If Apple focused on a bettering the overall experience and perhaps competitive pricing, then that is how they will make Apple Music good, but its not going to happen just by having only certain Beyonce or Taylor Swift albums that are pirated two minutes after they are released.
How does Apple Music compare to Spotify's paying user base? You know, just to compare like with like.
IIRC (off the top of my head) Apple music is roughly at 15m paying subscribers, and Spotify around 30m paid subscribers (not including free tier)
Yeah.... My first thought was, "Too ambitious?! Try not nearly ambitious enough!"
The music industry is stagnant, and the record labels are increasingly being shunned by independent artists because they see the lack of value they add to the business proposition.
Many of the new rock/alternative music artists who get a "hit" song today only do so because they put their material out on sites like YouTube for free and an advertising agency came along and decided it would make a great song for a commercial. (Take, for example, the "Renegades" song by X-Ambassadors. It wasn't a major label that discovered them... it was Chrysler Jeep!)
The truth is, even if you go back in time 40-50 years, the record labels only had something to offer musicians because A) the musicians had no business savvy whatsoever and needed someone to guide them along, and B) they had the technical capabilities to record them and cut their recording onto vinyl to distribute.
Most of the time, the artists got taken advantage of -- even to the point of getting depressed and overdosing on drugs, trying to escape their existence. But to the recording industry - such things were just small setbacks. They could still profit on all the recordings after the artist died, regardless.
Now, I think the labels are mostly selling empty promises again. "Hey... if you partner with us, we'll get your material on the Internet, digitally streaming, so it's available in this great new format and delivery mechanism!" But yeah, not so much. People aren't blown away by how amazing something like "Apple Music" makes the listening experience. More often, they're just frustrated that it screwed up something about their digital music collection and its organization, or frustrated with bugs that interrupted their listening. And as per usual, artists are getting short-changed on the profits, earning only fractions of a cent each time someone listens to their track.
I don't know what the solution is, if one even exists? (Hey, if I did, I'd be off doing that, making a bunch of money!) But maybe an answer is re-thinking the entire business model? For example, what about people subscribing to their favorite artists? Instead of the idea of buying albums or tracks or paying monthly fees to listen to "anything you want that we happen to have available" -- maybe you'd pay an annual fee to each artist you personally liked best, and that entitled you to attend any and all concerts they performed that year AND unlimited access to their recorded works?
Then, the "recording industry" would be transformed into more of a service industry for musicians -- kind of like web hosting services are for web developers today. An artist would say, "Well hey, I've got all these fans who are paying my asking price to subscribe to all my work. I need someone to host my content to stream it out to these listeners." So the labels would compete for their business offering that via the music delivery services online.
The music industry is stagnant, and the record labels are increasingly being shunned by independent artists because they see the lack of value they add to the business proposition.
Many of the new rock/alternative music artists who get a "hit" song today only do so because they put their material out on sites like YouTube for free and an advertising agency came along and decided it would make a great song for a commercial. (Take, for example, the "Renegades" song by X-Ambassadors. It wasn't a major label that discovered them... it was Chrysler Jeep!)
The truth is, even if you go back in time 40-50 years, the record labels only had something to offer musicians because A) the musicians had no business savvy whatsoever and needed someone to guide them along, and B) they had the technical capabilities to record them and cut their recording onto vinyl to distribute.
Most of the time, the artists got taken advantage of -- even to the point of getting depressed and overdosing on drugs, trying to escape their existence. But to the recording industry - such things were just small setbacks. They could still profit on all the recordings after the artist died, regardless.
Now, I think the labels are mostly selling empty promises again. "Hey... if you partner with us, we'll get your material on the Internet, digitally streaming, so it's available in this great new format and delivery mechanism!" But yeah, not so much. People aren't blown away by how amazing something like "Apple Music" makes the listening experience. More often, they're just frustrated that it screwed up something about their digital music collection and its organization, or frustrated with bugs that interrupted their listening. And as per usual, artists are getting short-changed on the profits, earning only fractions of a cent each time someone listens to their track.
I don't know what the solution is, if one even exists? (Hey, if I did, I'd be off doing that, making a bunch of money!) But maybe an answer is re-thinking the entire business model? For example, what about people subscribing to their favorite artists? Instead of the idea of buying albums or tracks or paying monthly fees to listen to "anything you want that we happen to have available" -- maybe you'd pay an annual fee to each artist you personally liked best, and that entitled you to attend any and all concerts they performed that year AND unlimited access to their recorded works?
Then, the "recording industry" would be transformed into more of a service industry for musicians -- kind of like web hosting services are for web developers today. An artist would say, "Well hey, I've got all these fans who are paying my asking price to subscribe to all my work. I need someone to host my content to stream it out to these listeners." So the labels would compete for their business offering that via the music delivery services online.
Innovation is bringing something new to the table that improves functionality and the user experience while improving on past technology. Something that hasn't been seen in the industry before. Apple is lagging in many metrics. What is your definition of innovation? And I ask, what do you think is innovative lately from Apple? The Watch Series 2 is pretty solid, I'll say that.
Last edited:
It's not too expensive, it's just not for you. Most people do listen to more than 144 songs in a year, it's for those people. And actually, from an artists perspective it's not nearly expensive enough but it seems to be around the limit of what people are willing to pay.