"Apple's iTunes is Alienating Its Most Music-Obsessed Listeners"

[Anderton]

Before anyone gets on my case for bashing Apple, this article from wired.com is pretty brutal, but raises some very interesting points that relate to streaming in general...it's just that Apple Music is the most visible source for people to vent, since people have already forgotten that Tidal exists

 

Comments?

 

[sventvkg]

iTunes is HORRIBLE!!!! I can't help but think Steve Jobs is rolling in his grave over what that software has become.

[MikeRivers]

True music-obsessed listeners should go to concerts and clubs, not listening to tunes from iTunes while working out at the gym. Maybe listen to some community or college radio stations over the Internet to find some really different music. Or learn to play an instrument (anything but drums, please).

[Ernest Buckley]

Before anyone gets on my case for bashing Apple, this article from wired.com is pretty brutal, but raises some very interesting points that relate to streaming in general...it's just that Apple Music is the most visible source for people to vent, since people have already forgotten that Tidal exists

 

Comments?

 

Read the article… not sure whats so brutal. Apple is trying to resolve the issue of illegal sharing of music. I think Apples biggest flaw is that its trying to be everything to everyone that owns Apple products. Apple makes no gripes about it, they want you to buy Apple products and they want you locked into their system, this way there is a control. Doesn`t every company want this? Apple does it better than most, that is why there is so much Apple backlash/haters, in my opinion.

 

My only gripe with iTunes is that it keeps changing. I own all of my music and I want to be able to manage and access it from all of my Apple devices. Thats its. No tricks here. iTunes does this for the most part. Unfortunately, iTunes does not give me access to the CDs I downloaded into it which I clearly own. Thats my only gripe.

 

As for Apple getting into bed with major money makers like U2 and Dr. Dre, again, thats Apple trying to get some control of the music which they have been slowly trying to monopolize since the introduction of iTunes. I don`t see this as a bad thing as long as the artists are getting paid fairly and are not bound to some crazy rules. At least Apple is trying to improve the situation which is a lot more than most…

 

EB

[Craig Vecchione]

The issue of illegal sharing of digital media is arguably the ultimate paradox of business. As soon as media became digitized and transportable globally, the genie was let out of the bottle. Everything...near zero cost of production, worldwide distribution, and marketing...that makes it a dream come true for music businesses is what also makes it the ultimate nightmare of control. People want open source everything, but businesses still need to make a profit, or as we see almost daily, they go under. Until someone finds a way to have their cake and eat it too...which let's face it, is what the record industry really wants...we'll continue to see them flailing around with new but still lame policies and methods.

 

I should add that regarding the thread title, Apple isn't really too concerned about the most obsessed listeners...they aren't the bread-and-butter. They always have catered to the average person in everything they've done. That's why Apple is huge today. They weren't concerned with how the uber-coder would deal with personal computing, which is how IBM set up the PC. They made computing accessible to the average person. The Mac did this, the iPod did this, and the iPad is doing this. iTunes was set up for the average listener. There are for more of those than what resides at either end of the bell curve.

[Anderton]

 

Read the article… not sure whats so brutal. Apple is trying to resolve the issue of illegal sharing of music. I think Apples biggest flaw is that its trying to be everything to everyone that owns Apple products. Apple makes no gripes about it, they want you to buy Apple products and they want you locked into their system, this way there is a control. Doesn`t every company want this? Apple does it better than most, that is why there is so much Apple backlash/haters, in my opinion.

 

I understand that it's a dog-eat-dog world and all that, but take Thunderbolt. That was supposed to be an industry standard created by a joint effort of Intel and Apple. It has obviously been adopted by the Mac, but ask audio interfaces companies that have essentially been locked out of selling their products to Windows users - in other words, having to blow off at least 50% of their market - how they feel about Thunderbolt, because they have to get any drivers approved by Apple and Intel. Everything I've heard is that Apple drags its feet, which I can believe given the paucity of Windows drivers for Thunderbolt-compatible products. One company with great Thunderbolt technology basically just gave up and for Windows, threw its lot in with USB 3.0.

 

Now I can understand proprietary "standards" (I guess that's an oxymoron) but look what happened to the music industry because Roland and Sequential Circuits didn't cut a deal where only they could produce MIDI gear easily. The main complaint I have is that Apple is doing a disservice to Apple users. The Windows OS remains dominant in sheer numbers, and when cross-platform products exist, that produces economies of scale and more choices for everyone. Having more Thunderbolt options will make Thunderbolt more attractive for Mac users, and because Apple has a head start and also knows where the spec is going, they'll be able to retain a dominant position - and people who really need to use Thunderbolt will be that much more attracted to the Mac. Apple just won't be able to maintain an exclusive position. In return, Thunderbolt will gain a whole lot more traction.

 

Apple still hasn't come up with 64-bit QuickTime for Windows. Why should they? Well, do they want to own MOV on all computers, or just Macs? It's short-sighted. Why do you think Apple decided to support IBM-formatted floppy disks? It allowed those who were chained to Windows machine in their business to use Macs if they wanted.

 

We see this dilemma all the time...do you want all of a little pie, or part of a much bigger pie? An obvious example is Harmony Central. When we were acquired by Gibson, Henry Juszkiewicz could have said "Don't cover any products other than products from Gibson Brands" and would have had every right to do so. But he didn't, because he's smart enough to realize that a bigger music industry means that everyone will do better, including Gibson. If a review of a Fender guitar in Harmony Central inspires someone to buy a Fender guitar and get into music, that's good for Gibson because at some point, that Fender owner will get more involved in music and could very likely end up with a TASCAM interface, KRK speakers, etc. (And tfhat person will probably end up getting a Les Paul at some point anyway...or at least a J-45 ).

 

 

[Anderton]

As to iTunes, I'm not the average user by a long shot, but I find it confusing. I have two iPods but instead use my Creative Labs Zen from 2005 because the software is a whole lot easier to use, and the battery is user-replaceable

[Phil O'Keefe]

 

I understand that it's a dog-eat-dog world and all that, but take Thunderbolt. That was supposed to be an industry standard created by a joint effort of Intel and Apple. It has obviously been adopted by the Mac, but ask audio interfaces companies that have essentially been locked out of selling their products to Windows users - in other words, having to blow off at least 50% of their market - how they feel about Thunderbolt, because they have to get any drivers approved by Apple and Intel. Everything I've heard is that Apple drags its feet, which I can believe given the paucity of Windows drivers for Thunderbolt-compatible products. One company with great Thunderbolt technology basically just gave up and for Windows, threw its lot in with USB 3.0.

 

Now I can understand proprietary "standards" (I guess that's an oxymoron) but look what happened to the music industry because Roland and Sequential Circuits didn't cut a deal where only they could produce MIDI gear easily. The main complaint I have is that Apple is doing a disservice to Apple users. The Windows OS remains dominant in sheer numbers, and when cross-platform products exist, that produces economies of scale and more choices for everyone. Having more Thunderbolt options will make Thunderbolt more attractive for Mac users, and because Apple has a head start and also knows where the spec is going, they'll be able to retain a dominant position - and people who really need to use Thunderbolt will be that much more attracted to the Mac. Apple just won't be able to maintain an exclusive position. In return, Thunderbolt will gain a whole lot more traction.

 

 

It's definitely a short-sighted move on Apple's part, and it makes things worse for their users. I'd love to be able to buy fairly-priced Thunderbolt peripherals for my Macs, but without Windows users widely adopting Thunderbolt, you don't have the economies of scale working in your favor, and the availability of Thunderbolt products remains limited, and the prices remain high. And products that I do decide to buy are only useful with my Mac, and can't be used with my PC. That severely limits their utility to me.

[Craig Vecchione]

As to iTunes, I'm not the average user by a long shot, but I find it confusing. I have two iPods but instead use my Creative Labs Zen from 2005 because the software is a whole lot easier to use, and the battery is user-replaceable

 

Agreed completely. I'm a former IT guy. I've got an old iPod and a PC (well now two) with iTunes. I have to search for even the most basic functions because all Apple cares about is steering me into the damned Store. It's constantly pestering me to update yet again, to install iCloud and other junk, and it was difficult to move to my new laptop. Ugh.

 

 

[Anderton]

What's even worse is that when I go online with my dual G5, which works perfectly well and is a fine office computer, most of the time I get a message from a site that says "Sorry, you're not compatible. You need to download a modern browser." Except...no one develops for the G5 any more, so there ARE no modern browsers. Now my 10.6.8 Snow Leopard laptop is showing similar signs of "buy a new computer, dumbass."

 

I have a Windows XP machine I use in my office for keeping track of finances, writing letters, and such. Internet Exploder is basically useless. I downloaded Chrome and that works fine...for now. But how long before it won't work? I'm finding that Opera is still pretty good about working with everything but that's about it.

[blue2blue]

I don't like or trust Apple, the company, for pretty much all the same reasons I didn't like or trust IBM, the company. Apple took much of its business strategy from IBM's proprietary, vertical market playbook, to my thinking, But you know what they used to say, No one ever got fired for buying IBM. Of course, it was IBM that said it.

 

 

[blue2blue]

With regard to iTunes/Apple Music, which I still haven't tried -- though I did two extended trials of Beats Music which was totally awful to my tastes and, as many say about AM, felt more like relentless marketing than a good subscription streamer -- I'm still intrigued. Tidal may fall off the face of the globe before I've tried it, but I'm thinking AM is here to stay, for better or whatever.

 

I suppose it's some form of situational 'irony' that a guy like me who hasn't regularly listened to commercial radio since the late 80s -- and who can barely stand more than a few minutes with the contemporary top-o-pops because vocal tuning artifacts make him want to tear his ears off his head -- that the one thing about AM I was kind of interested in was the live DJ streams. I don't know if it's some perverse nostalgia, or what, but somehow the notion of some DJ sitting in the ivory citadel (presumably virtualized) 'spinning' tunes for listeners around the world tickles my fancy. In some weird way.

 

That said, I've caught some video clips of the AM DJ's in action interviewing folks and whatnot and it was utterly uncompelling. I would have thought they'd be the hippest of the hip but... not hardly... NPR has a lot more hipsters. And it's...well... NPR.

 

 

 

[...] I own all of my music and I want to be able to manage and access it from all of my Apple devices. Thats its. No tricks here. iTunes does this for the most part. Unfortunately, iTunes does not give me access to the CDs I downloaded into it which I clearly own. Thats my only gripe.

 

[...]

EB

What about iTunes Match? Isn't that precisely what it's supposed to do?

 

For me, Google's equivalent [the core of the original all-free Google Play Music before they rolled out the 'All Access' pay tier] became a very compelling 'add on' to the subscription streaming service. As I've often noted, I've been on 6 different subscription stream platforms (7 counting two extended Beats trials) but none save the first, MusicMatch On Demand, and my current, Google Play Music, had any way of integrating one's own collection with stream selections more or less seamlessly.

 

For MMOD, which started out with the MusicMatch desktop media player, that was relatively easy. You had your local library on your machine and streams from over the wire. Starting out in the first half of the first decade of the century, mobile wasn't really an issue, although they did have utilities for loading up your dedicated mp3 player or some mp3-playing phones [i don't recall specifically if they allowed subscription music on portables, though they used the WMA codec which had fairly robust IP management built in that would allow for 'time-outs' and such].

 

For Google, of course, it's all about the cloud -- and by this era, that makes reasonable sense. It's great to be able to access both subscription and personal libraries mobilely -- and you can even use FLAC for your uploads for lossless playback.

 

 

As noted, though, my own early Android phone doesn't have nearly enough internal memory -- and, for 'performance' reasons, presumably, G stores all the graphics from your personal 'favorites' library in internal storage -- even though music downloads will go to SD storage. Since my aggregate stream/upload favorites library is pretty huge (just under 2400 albums), those graphics will suck up EVERYTHING leaving the phone unable to even edit a telephone number. No freakin' kidding.

 

On my Google Nexus 7 tablet, the graphics library seems to come to 'rest' about 500 MB... just for album art. If that could be stored in SD, I could run GPM on my phone. But, nope. When I've talked to G about their great reluctance to allow the use of SD memory, they claim it's unreliable and there are performance issues. Well, my Google branded Nexus 7 has ONLY internal storage and it's got memory and performance issues up the wazoo at this point. Meanwhile, all the other non-Google apps on my little old Android phone work great, even when the app and data are both in SD storage.