Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Fofer

macrumors 6502a
Oct 24, 2002
684
114
It's a game changer in the sense that it would remove Apple Music's sole advantage over Spotify for Apple Watch owners :)
 

techfreak23

macrumors 6502a
Sep 8, 2013
680
823
It’s about damn time! 3 and a half years later... I’m not worried about the offline downloads. It would be nice to have, but not crucial for me as I never have my airpods connected directly to my watch. All I cared about was being able to switch songs and playlists. Hopefully the beta period isn’t too long...
 
  • Like
Reactions: svepo

intelligence

macrumors regular
Aug 27, 2015
185
277
They did try though. It's been a year and a half and that app was nearly ready for release. I think Spotify just realized that they messed up and enough people left for AM. They caved out of need to retain customers.

Apparently that app used a glitch that was closed by Apple in a subsequent update to watchOS. So don't put the blame on Spotify. We also don't know what sort of deals Spotify have with labels. Maybe they weren't even allowed to have make a watch app for music streaming. Ultimately I'd say it's Apple that is putting breaks on more advanced apps on watchOS as the third party API's don't get as much access to the OS as they need to.
 

ILikeAllOS

macrumors 6502
Jul 28, 2011
433
588
Tampa Bay
How does an Apple Music feature matter to Spotify users? o_O
I didn't say it mattered to them, I addressed that one user's comment who said it would be a game-changer which isn't true.
He didn't say it would be a Spotify-changer, he said a game-changer.
Apple Music and Spotify are a part of the same game, so if Apple Music already added offline storage first, then Spotify can't "change the game" by doing the same thing Apple already did. o_O
 

Tech198

Cancelled
Mar 21, 2011
15,915
2,151
This should make Apple watch owners happy

This is what's killing the Watch for me now.

I just got an S4 LTE and am very limited in what I can do without my phone nearby and connected. The main reason I got the LTE was to not have to bring my phone when I go for a run or bike ride, but without the phone only Apple's workout app can utilize GPS and data, and it's far from my top choice of app. So I still have to bring my phone with me, and I get to pay $10/month for the privilege.

Apple watch being in-depended of the phone totally part from the bluetooth connection.. ? Optical, not required. I'd be ok with that. but seems Apple's limiting what the LTE connection can be used for, probably in conjunction with the limited space on the watch.

Basically let the watch behave like a phone's connection

Apple limits you to the size of updates over LTE ,at least with me i can't download large software update. Perhaps Apple wants you to use iPhone over Wi-fi, more as the reason.
 
Last edited:
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.