There's many reasons, all that have been covered in this thread, but you ignore them, move goalposts, or go off in inane tangents, like this one.
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.
Well, That Was Quick - Bored Already, Not Going To Keep Apple Music
- Thread starter boltjames
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
There's many reasons, all that have been covered in this thread, but you ignore them, move goalposts, or go off in inane tangents, like this one.
If you go by boltjames' post, you might as well give up as an artist, as you cannot make any good music, since it's all already been done....
So, that's a massive backtrack on your earlier posts that streaming is a ripoff for everyone and a waste?! That's the end of the thread then. Finally!
Neither are you or boltjames, which is the point most people are trying to make, despite you claiming you are.
Sorry to hear about all the Apple cloud problems yesterday and today.
Very nice that my owned and synced to my devices music library is not involved whatsoever.
Very nice that my owned and synced to my devices music library is not involved whatsoever.
Sorry to hear about all the Apple cloud problems yesterday and today.
Very nice that my owned and synced to my devices music library is not involved whatsoever.
I didn't notice it at all, as I was mostly just listening to stuff that was set to be available offline.
Very nice that we have that ability, for the odd time there's outage. Almost like it was another reason that functionality was included......
Because I've lived in the past.
If you own assets, you control them. If you don't own them, other people will control your access to them. This applies to all assets, BTW: Music, cars, houses, airplanes, boats, low-interest loans, beach-front property. Even the TV remote control at home!
You'll get access for sure, since the owner wants income (or equivalent payment) from you, but it will be on the owners' terms, never yours.
I'll admit it, renting is a great short-term or tactical solution for things you don't use very often. Like a u-haul truck, or a banquet room for a wedding, or a hotel room in a city you're visiting. To me, music doesn't fall into that category.
I guess if you're happy being controlled by someone else's financial priorities, being someone else's income stream, then no harm done.
Um, because we're talking about a service for people who are interested in music.
When figuring out where to price it t, what value is there in factoring in rent of millions of people like my 78 year old Mum who hasn't bought a record since the 70s?
Even if there are a lot of people who buy little or no music, that certainly isn't a good reason for the price of Apple Music to be based on the amount those people spend.
Streaming as a model is already open to debate on the grounds that artists get so little - so the argument that streaming should cost $12-24 a year doesn't seem to hold much water.
If you're speaking for yourself, that's all fine.
So can you please stop saying "we" when you mean "I".
But what do you even mean "the back catalogue of good stuff"?
This is the crux of your whole flawed argument - that "the good stuff" stopped 15-20 years ago.
Whilst you might think so (which in itself is ironic given that you are supposedly really cool and still love your music), to state something like that as some sort of definitive fact is utter nonsense.
But its completely unrealistic to expect AM to be priced according to the little that you feel you personally would get out of it.
Why can't you understand that?
Its like saying that you only go to the cinema once a year, therefore an unlimited card for the cinema should cost $20.
Utterly unrealistic.
But it sounds like you are happy to just listen to the tracks in the playlists.
But what about if you hear stuff you like, and want to go off and listen to whole albums by artists you hear?
That is the huge benefit of streaming that you don't seem to have grasped.
With AM, if I hear a song in a playlist, I can download the album its from into my library and listen to it whenever I want.
Are you able to do that with iTunes Radio? (being able to buy it doesn't count, because that's no longer iTunes Radio, that's you buying it.)
No - they're not a terrific analogy at all, for all the reasons already given.
With those you get fished in with big discounts, and then have to buy more albums that you might not want.
With AM, the price is the same all the time, and you have access to virtually all music. And various means to help you discover plenty of music you might be interested in.
I, and I'm sure many others, really aren't interested in what's good enough for your wartime.
I'm not really interested in how long I can go without listening to the same song twice. I'm interested in hearing new stuff I haven't heard before.
You are telling me I am wasting money? Seriously, your arrogance here is spectacular.
If I can listen to 30+ albums a year that would normally cost around $300, how exactly am I wasting my money with AM if it costs $120?
Last edited:
Plus, with streaming, if you listen to the whole album, then dislike most of it, you can just drop the rest from the library, no wasting $10-$12 on the album....
Uh-huh.
That would be a much better point if this was a science lab, and once you had one song that sounded within a set of parameters, you had no interest in hearing any other song remotely close to those parameters.
That's not really how music works for most people. I haven't, for example, decided that I don't need The Killers in my library because some of their stuff can sound a bit like other stuff from the 80s.
The very idea just seems bonkers.
So you amassed 25,000 songs over a 40 year period then? Roughly.
Which is the equivalent of about 50 albums a year.
Given that many people would easily have a library of at least double that, how exactly did you arrive at the conclusion that I would be in the most extreme 1% of hardcore music nuts with my 10,000 song library and 15-30 albums a year?
The simple fact is this: just because you don't hear much new stuff that you want to listen to does not mean that there isn't an abundance of new music that plenty of other people do want to listen to.
The idea that "all the good music has already been created" is just utter, utter nonsense.
Or actually, is it all the good music, apart from your Tame Impala album which snuck through the net?
It's funny that you dismiss the line about you just being like millions before bemoaning that "music just isn't as good as it used to be" as a cliche, but here you are saying exactly that!
Or are we to believe that anyone before you saying that was just uncool Dad of any other year....
...but when you say it, it carries some sort of definitive authority?
Last edited:
Also, just another point, ripping CD's is illegal in the U.K., so that's another flaw in your argument for universal hate of streaming...
What the artists get paid is an issue between them and their record companies who apparently don't value them very much.
The music industry has already collapsed; Apple Music is a last gasp to try to make a bad business model better by making it worse.
BJ
Yes. Same for TV, same for Movies, same for Books, we're in the post-peak dark ages of old media who struggle to survive against the onslaught of mobile devices and apps. Used to be that we needed these entertainment mechanisms to connect with our friends; today a naked selfie does the same thing and does it more effectively.
BJ
I didn't say a word about 30 seconds. iTunes previews are 90 seconds, plenty of time to decide whether or not a purchase is necessary.
BJ
Here, I'll say it in a way that perhaps you can understand:
Anyone in their 40s and 50s who was interested in music as an enthusiast already has thousands of songs and doesn't need any more.
Savvy?
BJ
- Status