Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Apple Music Was Always Going To Win (gizmodo.com)

Posted by msmash on from the home-advantage dept.

Apple Music is about to overtake Spotify as the most popular streaming music service in the United States, the Wall Street Journal reported over the weekend. Gizmodo: [...] Here's where the inevitability comes into play. Because all Apple devices come preloaded with Apple Music, countless consumers start using Apple Music without knowing any better. It's effectively become the streaming music analogue of Microsoft pushing people to surf the web with Internet Explorer. The big difference is that people eventually have to pay for Apple Music, which is the same price as Spotify. As many suspected when it launched three years ago, Apple Music was bound to succeed simply because Apple is big enough and rich enough to will it so. Think about it this way: Spotify gained traction quickly after its 2011 launch, largely because music enthusiasts had seen its streaming model succeed globally and wanted to try this neat new thing. After all, there wasn't anything quite like it at the time, and Americans love to feel innovative.

But eventually, Spotify would cease to feel special and new. As the years passed, practically every major tech company launched its own music streaming service. And then, in 2015, Apple unveiled Apple Music in 2015 -- which was really just a rebranded version of Beats Music. Because Apple could preload the service on iPhones, Watches, and Macs, the company could effectively tap into a new revenue stream without actually inventing anything.

100 of 161 comments (clear)

  1. Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party. Quick, someone tell Microsoft so they can try this with IE, I mean Edge.

    1. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by Malc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I thought the iPhone only had about a 1/3 market share in the US. Hardly Microsoftâ(TM)s 95+% they had in the heyday of Windows and the browser wars. Come to think of it, how how does Apple Music become the biggest service when itâ(TM)s only available on a minority of devices?

    2. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No idea how many people use it, but Apple Music for Android is a thing.

    3. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Because people that pay for streaming music on a phone are tiny subset of phone users and are more common among apple users.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    4. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by saloomy · · Score: 1

      Right, but without a dominant market position, it isn't anti-competitive. Microsoft did this with a market-dominant position, as stated. Windows was on 95% of desktops, so anything they did would become a de-facto standard. Its as if one were to get mad that car makers dictate who integrates the radio. Its ok that they do this, since none of them are market-dominant. Apple has less market share than Android, which saves them from the anti-competitive assault from the fed.

    5. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Over 10mil installs on Android, with a 3.5 rating, having 211k ratings.

      3.5 is fairly bad. Given that there isn't a 0 star rating, it equates to a 6.25 rating on a 0-10 scale.

    6. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It does - on the other hand, it's an app made by Apple, which means there's probably a pretty significant proportion of the android crowd giving it 1* reviews for no reason other than it being made by Apple.

    7. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      OMG, it also equates to 9626.4 / 13752! Or 1.4 / 2!

      It's the same ratio no matter what bounds you apply, but futzing with the bounds can sure make it look worse or better, can't it?

    8. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by arth1 · · Score: 2

      It's the same ratio no matter what bounds you apply

      No, it isn't. 3.5/5 where the bounds are 1-5 is not the same as 3.5/5 where the bounds are 0-5.

      What people are most used to are arguably 0-10 and 0-100 scales, and 1-5 scales are misleading, and deliberately so. Google has chosen to not allow 0 stars, because, well, they get a portion of the cut on sales, and giving the impression that something is better than it is in their economic interest.

    9. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by jellomizer · · Score: 1

      While 1/3 Market share is very respectable it is hardly enough to get people using Apple Devices who are not Apple Sheep to use it. Especially if they find that their other devices may not work with it.

      iTunes got dominance, not because it was Apple or even a good product, but because it was one of the first places that offered legal Music Download, and its integration to the popular iPod was important too.

      However today, the iPhone isn't nearly as popular as the iPod is. There are a lot of good alternatives and competing products. So the Apple Music may not seem like the best bet, especially as other sources work fine on apple products.

      This is different from the browser war, because first you are not fighting with nearly 95% dominance. Secondly it isn't as much of an integral part of the device, as nearly everyone used a web browser, only a fraction of the users will want streaming music. Third, being a paid services it means extra pain in the pocket so they will look at alternatives as well.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    10. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by alvinrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      May also be Apple keeping iOS design metaphors so that while it may be functionally just as good, it doesn't feel like a native Android app which makes using it a little jarring.

    11. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      I thought the iPhone only had about a 1/3 market share in the US. Hardly MicrosoftÃ(TM)s 95+% they had in the heyday of Windows and the browser wars. Come to think of it, how how does Apple Music become the biggest service when itÃ(TM)s only available on a minority of devices?

      It's only preinstalled on a minority of devices.

      It is available for the most popular mobile OS too.

    12. Re:Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If Spotify wants my business they can program their app in something more efficient than JavaScript and node. Just having their shitty app open cuts my battery life by several hours. iTunes might be bloated but it has negligible effect on my battery life.

    13. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Right, but without a dominant market position, it isn't anti-competitive.

      No it is still anticompetitive, it's the same behaviour it just doesn't fall afoul of anti-trust laws. If the government considers Apple's market position to be dominant then that anticompetitive behaviour becomes illegal but it's the same anticompetitive behaviour.

    14. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by arth1 · · Score: 2

      No one is used to a 0-10 scale because thatÃ(TM)s 11 units which is highly irregular. Same with a 0-5, being a very strange six units to humans since it looks, to the layman, like there are five units.

      On the contrary. Your hand can display 0-5 fingers. Two hands can display 0-10. It's the most natural system in the world. You don't have 11 fingers (unless you killed Montoya Senior).

    15. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by jools33 · · Score: 1

      Where do I go to give the 1* Apple review?

    16. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by dswskinner · · Score: 1

      Or you could just get the Apple Music family plan which covers 6 users for $14.99

    17. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      I thought the iPhone only had about a 1/3 market share in the US. Hardly Microsoftâ(TM)s 95+% they had in the heyday of Windows and the browser wars. Come to think of it, how how does Apple Music become the biggest service when itâ(TM)s only available on a minority of devices?

      I think the usually given reason is that they may have 1/3 of the market, but they have 2/3s of the users willing to pay money for things.

    18. Re: Preinstalled app used more than 3rd party by Agripa · · Score: 1

      No one is used to a 0-10 scale because thatÃ(TM)s 11 units which is highly irregular. Same with a 0-5, being a very strange six units to humans since it looks, to the layman, like there are five units.

      On the contrary. Your hand can display 0-5 fingers. Two hands can display 0-10. It's the most natural system in the world. You don't have 11 fingers (unless you killed Montoya Senior).

      I count on my fingers in gray code you insensitive clod!

  2. sounds about right by Osgeld · · Score: 1

    the company could effectively tap into a new revenue stream without actually inventing anything.,

    they sound surprised apple would ever do such a thing

    1. Re:sounds about right by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      If the money is just laying there on the ground you can't blame them for picking it up.

    2. Re:sounds about right by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      no I don't, its kind of how apple has always worked, after all "great artists steal"

    3. Re:sounds about right by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      It's not the ability to innovate that makes companies successful, it's the ability to exploit innovations.

  3. Pandora by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · · Score: 1

    >> After all, there wasn't anything quite like it at the time, and Americans love to feel innovative.

    So I haven't been using Pandora since 2008 or 2009?

    1. Re:Pandora by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · · Score: 1

      The primary differences are their names, that's it.

    2. Re:Pandora by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Pandora lets you give an example song, and plays similar songs.

      The others let you play specific songs.

      If you didn't know that was the difference ... well now you do.

    3. Re:Pandora by Altrag · · Score: 1

      Its not about the tech. Its about the licenses. Pandora was moderately popular but Spotify managed to get all the major licensing deals and by that, beat out much of the competition. Average users don't care if you got a 0.38% better compression ratio or if you provide better deals for indie artists. They care about listening to the latest pop song right now. If you don't happen to have that one, your market share will suffer.

    4. Re:Pandora by jwhyche · · Score: 2

      And? Spotify has a bigger library so it will probably have the song that I want to hear. Not just a similar song. Also once Spotify plays the song I want to hear, it will go on and play similar songs too.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    5. Re:Pandora by rpresser · · Score: 1

      And ... THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER (poster I replied to) asserted that there was no difference between Pandora and Spotify. Spotify lets you select songs, and in my opinion is therefore superior to Pandora. Spotify has a function that Pandora lacks, and that was the purpose of my comment.

    6. Re:Pandora by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · · Score: 1

      What? If you pay for their service, same price as spotify, it acts exactly like spotify. You choose any song you want. If you didn't know that that spotify and pandora were the same ... well now you do.

    7. Re:Pandora by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · · Score: 1

      If you pay for Pandora instead of using the free service, Pandora does exactly what you claim it doesn't. You choose any song you want. If you didn't know that that spotify and pandora were the same ... well now you do.

    8. Re:Pandora by rpresser · · Score: 1

      I thank you for the education and I apologize for my misinformation. I gave up Pandora when Spotify began offering this service. Apparently Pandora just added this less than a year ago.

    9. Re:Pandora by THE_WELL_HUNG_OYSTER · · Score: 1

      Less than a year ago? I doubt it, unless my memory is failing me. Do you have a source?

    10. Re:Pandora by rpresser · · Score: 1

      http://blog.pandora.com/us/pan...

      "March 13, 2017"

    11. Re:Pandora by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Whereas in 2010, they were saying this:

      Pandora is NOT an on demand music service. It is more of a music discovery service where it will play songs similar to the ones you already like.

  4. Hasn't worked for Google by edtice1559 · · Score: 2

    Android is the most popular mobile OS and Google hasn't been able to leverage their size to push much of anything. Google Plus? I think Google also has a music service? In this case, the services are probably so similar that it's hard for consumers to tell them apart and the convenience of being preloaded may be enough. But this is only true in parity product situations.

    1. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      Google doesn't push GPM down the throats of its users. The mobile app has some issues but it's the best service of them all as far as my preferences go.

      As for Google Plus, I've never understood why it didn't take off. It's lacks a false sense of security, and has some pretty solid communities. One benefit of it being less popular is that it also has fewer morons on it.

    2. Re: Hasn't worked for Google by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      They forced people onto it.

      So you had a lot of people try it when they didn't feel like it, go meh, and never use it again.

      It's integration with their other services was terrible, and yet they forced that too.

      It was a huge PITA.

      I was bummed, I had a small group of friends that we all used buzz. It was perfect, showed up in email (not blocked by most companies), only friends, we already chatted with the messenger in email.

      If they integrated picassa into it, and let it slowly grow, it had a shot.

      But pushing everybody on when they weren't in the mood head to people not seeing the value of plus (IMO).

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    3. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by squiggleslash · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Google doesn't push GPM down the throats of its users.

      Well, it kinda does, it's just Play Music is always pushing so much other crap that you probably don't notice.

      I'm in the boat I rarely use Play Music. It's a terrible app. Just launched it after not using it for a while and the first thing I see is a popup "Music for where you are". I can't do anything with the app until I respond to the popup, which reads "At the gym? In the car? On your couch? Get music based on your location". I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FUCK THAT'S EVEN SUPPOSED TO MEAN. Why why why why would I be interested in different music if I'm sitting down vs, I don't know, not sitting down?

      Let me hit Skip. OK, now it's a bunch of recommendations. My music library is nowhere to be seen. I guess I'm going to have to hit the hamburger menu. Music Library is at the top... hahah, just kidding, no it's the fifth item in the menu, just below "New Releases". Wait? What? New Releases? And above that is "Top Charts"? So Google wants me to look at someone else's music library before I get access to my own.

      But let's go to Music Library, and OK, Google at least defaulted to Albums, because that's the last thing I used presumably. But have you seen the albums view? Google has managed to fuck this one up too, at any one time I can see six albums on screen. The screen is dominated by album covers. These covers consist of a gray box with a darker gray circle containing a music note in them for 90% of my library, because it doesn't recognize the CD I ripped.

      Underneath each is the label JUST KIDDING, no it's about 14 characters from the start of the label. Why 14? Because that's all that will fit on one line if you split the screen into two columns of boxes. If they, you know, showed a list, like the iPod used to do, I'd probably see the whole label in the majority of cases. But now I see things like "The 9 symphoni..." and "Adventures beyo..."

      Well, what I want to listen to is Beethoven's symphony #6. The version in my library. I can't use the album view because it sucks, so let me use the search. I try "Beethoven symphony 6" and I get.... directed to... some Beethoven "radio station"? And nothing in my library. I mean, why the fuck would I want that? I literally have no way of finding the right album without scrolling through boxes of circles with music notes in them squinting at text that might include part of the word "Symphony" in it but rarely even includes the composer's name.

      This is an awful app. I rarely listen to my music library these days, because the only way to access it is via this thing that sucks, so I've been building playlists using Amazon Prime's free music (and the music I've bought via Amazon) instead, but their app is only marginally better.

      But that said, Amazon, for all their faults, does not stop me looking at my music when I start their app, bringing up a dialog box to demand I look at some shitty new feature.

      One day I will meet Sergey Brin. I will hand him my phone. I will tell him there is a version of Beethoven's 6th in my library, and give him 30 seconds to find it. When he fails, I'll ask him why.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2

      GPM is a trainwreck. Their catalogue is a mess, with tons of artists lumped together because of similar names, albums with duplicate tracks and a host of other problems.

      They never fix anything, no matter how many times you report obvious errors.

      In contrast, Spotify generally fixes content errors within a week or two.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    5. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by farble1670 · · Score: 2

      I think Google also has a music service?

      You mean Google Play Music? Or are we talking Youtube? Or maybe Youtube Music? Or are we talking about the new streaming service they are building (seriously):
      https://www.theverge.com/2017/...

      My question: is there anyone here that fails to see the problem with this marketing strategy?

    6. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by farble1670 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I can't do anything with the app until I respond to the popup

      I just started the app and I don't see that popup. I can't recall ever seeing it.

      Let me hit Skip. OK, now it's a bunch of recommendations. My music library is nowhere to be seen.

      1. Start app
      2. Hamburger menu
      3. Select "Music Library"

      These covers consist of a gray box with a darker gray circle containing a music note in them for 90% of my library, because it doesn't recognize the CD I ripped.

      The only part of my lib that has missing art are singles for which there is no album (but I guess it could look up the album that contains that song) and audio books that I uploaded (but actually it found the cover with the audiobooks for most of them). You probably f'ed up your rips and didn't include meta data.

      Underneath each is the label JUST KIDDING, no it's about 14 characters from the start of the label.

      On my device, it's 21 characters for the title and much more for the artist. I don't see the problem. It's a compromise between fitting and many elements on the screen as possible and providing enough information to identify the element.

      so let me use the search. I try "Beethoven symphony 6" and I get.... directed to... some Beethoven "radio station"?

      I search for an artist for which there's an album in my library. The first entry was an "artist" link. The second was a list of albums, for which my album was the first in the list.

    7. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Cut down on caffeine? I have no real issues with Play Music and I've been using it for years. If I get a pointless suggestion like "Music for Saturdays" I just ignore it. The "Radio" feature works amazingly and unlike Spotify, doesn't choose songs that I have given a thumbs-down to. Only annoying thing they've done semi recently is move the Playlists drop-down to a new position but it's nothing I haven't gotten used to. Play Music is so much better than Spotify. I haven't used Apple's streaming music service so I can't comment on that one.

    8. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by Altrag · · Score: 1

      G+ failed to take off because it was a much weaker competitor to the well-established Facebook, providing fewer features and absolutely nothing in the way of benefits.

      And then Google tried to force the issue by forcing you to merge all your various Google accounts (Youtube accounts in particular since well.. Youtubers like to bitch about things.. a lot!), forcing you to use your real name, constantly bugging you to +1 things, etc. That in-your-face campaign got massive blowback (especially the account merge / loss of aliases) which in turn gave G+ a massive negative reputation. To the point where they slowly backtracked on pretty much all of that.

      If Google had spent their effort trying to make their product worth switching from FB (or at least using in conjunction with FB) rather than trying to ram it down everyone's throat, they may have managed to build up a bit of a user base. Even with all that, they got a few people. But without some "killer app" that FB couldn't or wouldn't immediately emulate, they just had no chance.

      Twitter is a good counter-example: They did things FB just didn't do -- limiting to short messages, and more importantly the introduction of hashtagging and @ referencing. I think FB does some version of the latter by now but they left Twitter to run that train to fame before they caught on.

      Then of course there's Snapchat. Again, they got big because they do things that FB doesn't. In particular, they automatically remove things you send after a few seconds. Which is great for horny teenagers who don't want their parents (or worse, teachers) to find out that they've been sexting or who they've been sexting with, and removes fear about things like having an ex-boyfriend show everyone your dirty pictures after a breakup since you can be (relatively) sure they weren't saved by the nature of the app.

      G+ just never had anything like that. Their major advertised feature was "circles" which was basically just the ability to have multiple distinct friends lists. And it turns out not enough people cared about that to make it a "killer" feature (just the maintenance alone would have been more hassle than most people care to deal with, trying to juggle who to put in which circles and the such.)

    9. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying anything based on two data points. If you're ready to draw conclusions on that we are going to have to revoke your Windows Vista login password.

      I'll leave you with this. If 1000 people look at the sky and see the full moon, and another reports a gigantic fire breathing dragon, does that mean the night sky is inconsistent?

    10. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      Isn't it the same marketing strategy as Allo, Duo, Hangouts, and Messages?

    11. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Apple's iTunes stinks just as much. As another poster said, it's really gone downhill since about version 9. Screens full of useless crap, bloody album art instead of a list view, byzantine editing of playlists. Blech.

    12. Re:Hasn't worked for Google by wardrich86 · · Score: 1

      Hashtags weren't anything new. Other sites like del.icio.us and Livejournal had been using them for some time (and far more appropriately, too). The limited messaging made little to no sense, either. I still don't understand why Twitter exists.

      Even stranger to compare is Myspace VS Facebook, and Facebook VS G+. I think if Google had have waited a bit longer, they probably could have taken over - with the reports that we have been seeing lately of people leaving Facebook, it would have been a great time for Google to reveal G+ and a new place for people to move to.

  5. Itunes just sucks by Archfeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It doesn't matter that it came from apple, or Atari or whomever. Not using apple hardware ensured I never got wrapped up in that nightmare that is iTunes.

    --
    errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
    1. Re:Itunes just sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When used on MacOS, iTunes is pretty good, On windows it might be another story.

    2. Re:Itunes just sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter that it came from apple, or Atari or whomever. Not using apple hardware ensured I never got wrapped up in that nightmare that is iTunes.

      The iTunes Windows software nightmare I went through (years time ago) was enough for me, never again. I still feel violated.

    3. Re:Itunes just sucks by Uberbah · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Then how do you know it's a nightmare. Going off of some anecdote that dates back to the Bush Administration?

    4. Re:Itunes just sucks by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Trying it once and saying 'FFFuuuuccckkk this' is hardly get wrapped up. True story!

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    5. Re:Itunes just sucks by DontBeAMoran · · Score: 1

      I concur. The default interface of the last few versions are worst than the ones before them, though - probably because of the popularity of Apple Music. But after a few changes, it can be made usable again.

      --
      #DeleteFacebook
    6. Re:Itunes just sucks by arth1 · · Score: 1

      Part of the problem was that iTunes installed QuickTime. I'm not sure whether that's a requirement anymore, but it was a showstopper, especially for people who needed to be at a specific and different version of QuickTime to support other programs or specific hardware.

      Another showstopper was how iTunes would full-screen itself no matter how many times you resized it to a manageable size, and steal focus. It seemed made for single-tasking people who can't deal with overlapping windows.

      From a music playing point of view, it also lacked gapless playback, so it wasn't very useful for those who like concept albums or classical music. And lack of FLAC support also alienated those who wanted higher quality.

      It's been a few years since I've looked at iTunes, so I don't know whether these things have been fixed or not.

    7. Re:Itunes just sucks by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

      Using Apple hardware doesn't mean you will automatically experience iTunes hell. I use lots of Apple hardware and haven't used iTunes in over 2 years. Yes, I agree that iTunes sucks but Apple doesn't force you to use it.

    8. Re: Itunes just sucks by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      It's true that iTunes for Windows is an abomination, for many of the same reasons that Microsoft products for OS X and iOS were fucking horrible a few years back - they tried to extend the UI paradigms of the OS you are not running into the one you are. iTunes for Windows tried to have Mac-like window widgets and such, and it just confused the hell out of Windows users, and bloated the thing up in order to not just render a regular window view.

      Microsoft has mostly fixed this with their iOS apps, but I imagine they got thousands of bug reports when they were rendering shit off the side of the screen, expecting you to just know to scroll horizontally like Windows Phone 7/8 did, and no other iOS app does.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    9. Re:Itunes just sucks by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      iTunes was the most useable at version 9. When they added this ridiculous interface we see today where even on the "large screen" iPhone 7+ / 8+ it can show all of four albums at a time instead of 10+ in a list with scaled album art and ABSOLUTELY NO LANDSCAPE FUNCTIONALITY WHATSOEVER, it's been downhill ever since.

      Remember CoverFlow? Bring that back for if someone cares about the album art. Otherwise, just give us a damn list like the iPod has had since 2001 - it's more efficient and just works better.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    10. Re: Itunes just sucks by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      It's successful because that's what you use if you wanna sync music to your iPhone.

      I do have an iPhone and I agree, iTunes sucks 500 fetid donkey scrotums per square inch. It mangles my music, and the music sync selection window is so shockingly poorly designed that I can only assume it was designed that way so that Apple could harvest free energy from Steve Job's spinning corpse.

    11. Re: Itunes just sucks by rpresser · · Score: 1

      Let's not forget that installing iTunes always brought along several megs of iPod drivers, Bonjour platforms, and who the hell knows what else, even if you never intended (and still don't intend) to let any Apple hardware within 30 meters of your Windows computer.

    12. Re: Itunes just sucks by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      People like you always say that and I believed you. But now I have a mac and no, it's not really that much better.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    13. Re: Itunes just sucks by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      Does iTunes even allow you to control how the music is stored on disc yet, just in case you want to use it with a less advanced player?

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    14. Re:Itunes just sucks by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      The last time I was testing out media player apps, every one had a little sucky built in webserver to upload music to. I didn't understand why until I realized iTunes was the only way to upload music that all apps could share. Not using iTunes meant I had to upload my library for every media app I tried because it got stuck in that app's little jail.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    15. Re:Itunes just sucks by houghi · · Score: 1

      Those where the exact words my dealer said selling me horse.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    16. Re: Itunes just sucks by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      You do have the option of converting the music to certain non-AAC formats like mp3, but the choices are limited. FLAC for example, isn't an option in itunes.

    17. Re: Itunes just sucks by Archfeld · · Score: 1

      In my personal opinion it assumes far too much control. The requirement for online access is another huge FSCK'up I just want to play a cd, or rip one to my generic mp3 player it could be one and done but no you have to have a library, I OWN the cd and should not have to have it in the cloud. Like I said I've set ITunes and ICloud, and Ifart up for my GF and I was able to resolve the issues but I won't have it on my PC so 'our' music in the form of my CDS is spread between 2 machines and there is constant conflict.

      --
      errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
  6. Beats UI was awful ... by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    ... I hope it's been improved since Apple took it over.

    Beats took over MOG, which was great. Beats UI was horrible, so I dropped it (or rather didn't switch to it - they didn't even do a real migration) and went with Spotify.

  7. Logic Fail by easyTree · · Score: 1

    Apple Music Was Always Going To Win

    --
    Requiem for the American Dream
  8. Keep in mind this is Unites States only by enjar · · Score: 4, Informative

    From TFA: "Globally, however, Spotify remains in a league of its own, with nearly twice as many paid subscribers as No. 2 Apple, and slightly faster subscriber growth."

    I'm a happy Spotify customer. It works on every platform we have in our house, including Linux

    1. Re:Keep in mind this is Unites States only by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Apple actually nodded to reality and produced an Android app for Apple Music too.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    2. Re:Keep in mind this is Unites States only by rbgaynor · · Score: 1

      Apple music only works on Apple devices as far as I know.

      There is an Apple Music App for Android and iTunes on the PC includes Apple Music support.

      --
      "Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
    3. Re: Keep in mind this is Unites States only by teg · · Score: 1

      It also works well on Sonos.

  9. For me, it's about Siri by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I used Pandora and Spotify until I got my iPhone 6, which was my first that had Siri. Being able to use voice control for my music in the car made Apple Music the obvious choice.

    Since the catalog is pretty much the same for on-demand specific music between the major services, the one that is integrated into my phone just makes sense. If Amazon or Spotify stood out in some other way, I would consider them, but they don't.

    1. Re: For me, it's about Siri by rbgaynor · · Score: 1

      Neither does the iPhone if the app implements SiriKit.

      --
      "Good things don't end with eum, they end with mania or teria." - H. Simpson
    2. Re: For me, it's about Siri by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately third party music apps can't use SiriKit due to Apple limitations.

      As an iPhone user who prefers Spotify, it is extremely frustrating and very typical of how Apple seeks to control everything.

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
  10. Can't read the article - Paywalled by Danathar · · Score: 1

    Sorry, I'd love to comment on your story, but I'm not paying the WSJ for the privilege.

    1. Re:Can't read the article - Paywalled by organgtool · · Score: 1

      Not reading the story has never stopped anyone from commenting on it.

    2. Re:Can't read the article - Paywalled by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, I'd love to comment on your story, but I'm not paying the WSJ for the privilege.

      Please pick from the list below:

      1. I hate ads. I'd rather pay for my content directly.
      2. I don't mind ads. I'd rather see ads then pay for content.
      3. The artists, IT folks, and so on that produced the content do not deserve to be compensated.

  11. Most Don't Use MacOS Nor iOS by Sweettoother · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The last I heard, more than 90% of computers don't run MacOS and more than 80% of the smartphones being used in the world are not iPhones. That means that less than 10% of desktop and laptop computers, and less than 20% of smartphones, being used today, have Apple Music pre-installed. Based on that alone, it doesn't appear to be a given that Apple Music would win. So, it must have to do with which users are using iPhones and Macs. Also, keep in mind that before streaming services started being offered, iTunes was the biggest music retailer, and iTunes did allow you to stream the content you bought (IIRC, it was called iTunes Match). So Apple just had to get their existing iTunes customers to start paying for Apple Music. I suspect that that, as well as Apple's long-standing entrenchment in the music industry, was what determined whether Apple Music would win or not.

    1. Re:Most Don't Use MacOS Nor iOS by PPH · · Score: 1

      Shhhh! You'll upset the true believers (time to re-write this joke).

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    2. Re:Most Don't Use MacOS Nor iOS by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      It doesn't appear given that any of them should "win" for whatever that actually means. By definition one service is going to be the most used, unless they all tie in terms of subscriber count, but there's going to be some ranked order in terms of user base. Normally, that likely creates a virtuous cycle that allows one company to come out on top as we see fairly often once a market matures, but the content producers have no desire to see this happen.

      When Apple's music store became the runaway clear success it let Apple dictate terms that the music industry was loath to accept. I don't foresee them allowing it to return to that type of situation, so if Apple gets too big, expect the content companies to try to prop up Spotify, Pandora, or some other service. Four of five major competitors means that none has sufficient power to dictate terms and that they most compete more fiercely with the other services.

      Apple Music was going to be successful enough just by virtue of it being an Apple product which means a minimal customer base due to brand loyalty and platform buy-in. However, I don't think it reaches the same level of dominance that Apple saw music players and online music sales over a decade ago. The content companies will do everything in their power to prevent that from occurring ever again. Ultimately I think Apple having the strong arm leverage was beneficial to the online music industry as Apple's aims were far more consumer friendly that what the music labels wanted, but they've always hated digital music so it comes as little surprise.

  12. I don't care... by DogDude · · Score: 1

    ... I own my own music, and I don't sell my personal information in exchange for it. I use cash.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:I don't care... by mrun4982 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather just stream it for free (which I do legally via Spotify). I haven't paid (money) for music in almost 2 years. There's not much reason to do so anymore.

    2. Re:I don't care... by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      I don't want instant access to 'every song' because almost every song isn't worth my time to listen to.

  13. {{POV|date=February 2018}} by SeaFox · · Score: 1

    Because all Apple devices come preloaded with Apple Music, countless consumers start using Apple Music without knowing any better.

  14. Too big to litigate out of existence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It probably also helps that Apple's war chest is so large that the music cartels cannot litigate them out of profitability or existence.

  15. I Hate to Quibble but... by mschwanke97402 · · Score: 1

    Apple Music was bound to succeed simply because Apple is big enough and rich enough to will it so."

    So what happened with Microsoft Edge browser. It is right there on the taskbar of every new Windows computer and every computer that was "voluntarily" upgraded for free to Windows 10. Is Microsoft not big enough or rich enough to make Edge a leading browser?

    I think Apple Music is a mess but the rivals are worse IMHO. Perhaps people actually do make informed choices based on preference.

  16. Misunderstanding history by nine-times · · Score: 2

    It's effectively become the streaming music analogue of Microsoft pushing people to surf the web with Internet Explorer.

    That's misunderstanding either the situation with Apple Music or the situation with Internet Explorer. Apple isn't sabotaging Spotify and making it crash on Apple devices. As far as I know, Apple isn't actively trying to redirect you to using Apple Music with every update of iOS. Apple isn't pushing to have record labels to produce only music that works on Apple Music.

    1. Re:Misunderstanding history by ilsaloving · · Score: 1

      Vox does it. You need to install a helper service for it to work, but it does. Works just fine on MacOS.

    2. Re:Misunderstanding history by geek · · Score: 1

      "Apple isn't sabotaging Spotify and making it crash on Apple devices"

      No but they are blocking it from Siri, being the default application and hooking into the OS in any meaningful way, plus signing up ON THE DEVICE costs 30% more than Apple Music for their protection money.

      I had both installed, every time I got in my truck Apple Music would come up on bluetooth, even though I like Spotify. It did this every single time I got in the truck until the latest OS update where I could "uninstall" Apple Music.

  17. Not compatible with enough Android devices by tepples · · Score: 2

    When I checked Google Play Store five minutes ago, I found that Apple Music for Android was incompatible with my Samsung Galaxy Tab A 8" tablet (SM-T350) despite that it runs Android 7. What am I missing?

    1. Re:Not compatible with enough Android devices by fluffernutter · · Score: 2

      Oh you must not be familiar with Apple. Everything needs to be at the newest level before anything will work together.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
    2. Re: Not compatible with enough Android devices by Brockmire · · Score: 1

      Maybe it's incompatible with headphone jacks.

  18. Manufacturing an incompatibility by tepples · · Score: 1

    It is available for the most popular mobile OS too

    I opened Google Play Store on my Galaxy Tab A 8" and searched for apple music. Many of the top 16 results imitated the Apple Music eighth notes icon, but not one was published by Apple. I opened Chrome on the same tablet, navigated to your comment, and clicked the link to the app only to see a notice in Google Play Store: "Your device isn't compatible with this version." Nor does it give me a list of devices, and I've noticed the app is also incompatible with a lot of other Android devices.

    Is Apple manufacturing an incompatibility to make Android look more fragmented in order to encourage Android users to switch to iOS on grounds that iOS is less fragmented?

    1. Re:Manufacturing an incompatibility by fluffernutter · · Score: 1

      No, that's just the way Apple is. They expect you to upgrade to the latest so you can use their software. Yes really.

      --
      Laws are rules for the court, but merely a bottom bar to hit for life. Think beyond laws in your actions always.
  19. Re:Apple Music was bound to succeed simply because by mugurel · · Score: 1

    Yeah, they wanted to call it iFixit but somehow that name was taken already.

  20. Pandora is not a jukebox by tepples · · Score: 1

    To avoid the higher royalties that record labels and music publishers impose on jukebox-style services, Pandora's lower service tiers behave more like a radio than like a jukebox. When the user chooses an artist, Pandora automatically builds a format out of recordings similar in genre to those of the chosen artist.

  21. I hate cross-site tracking by tepples · · Score: 1

    Those who hate cross-site tracking can answer a mix of 1 and 2 in a constent manner.

    1. I hate ads. I'd rather pay for my content directly.

    I'd rather pay for my content directly, but I'm not buying a month's subscription to ten different sites just to read one article on each of those sites. So how do I spend 1-5 cents on a single article or pay $10 per month for a bundle of sites? Adult Check would have been great for this, but the publisher of Perfect 10 magazine sued it out of business when too many publishers on Adult Check's network displayed infringing photos from the magazine. Google Contributor appears to be ideal except for two things:

    1. The same company also operates DoubleClick and AdSense. This makes it more likely that Google will share my article purchase history with its advertising division to trigger "interest-based ads" on third-party sites.
    2. Reloading the same article counts as an additional purchase at full price. This disincentivizes publishers from increasing server reliability, as each reload means more revenue.

    2. I don't mind ads.

    I don't mind ads hosted on the publisher's server because they have no third-party ad network or ad exchange to track "click-stream" (viewing history) across multiple sites. Daring Fireball does it right, selling display ad space directly to advertisers. So does Read the Docs. But I don't see how a smaller publisher can reach advertisers in order to do this.

  22. Anti trust by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Apple should be investigated for anti trust here. This is the same type of bundling that got MS in trouble with Windows/IE.

    What's more.. Apple grants Apple Music access to OS-level functionality not available to any other music streaming service on iOS (namely, voice control through Siri).

    I'm a Spotify user and I will not be compelled into using Apple Music. But damn, I really need voice controls when driving!

  23. I joined because of Apple Music behavior in car by 0x537461746943 · · Score: 1

    I always used either Spotify or Google Play as I could get them at cheaper pricing. I finally switched to Apple Music for one reason. Quite often when I got into my car, Apple Music would play the same song every time. It wasn't even a song that I liked. It was a song that was free that they offered at some point. It seems like if you have a third party music app and you get out of the car with that music playing, You later inside the house stop playing that third party app and launch other games and such, When you get back into the car, The car tries to continue playing music. Because that third party app was not the last thing to play audio, Apple Music gets chosen as the music player by default. Well... I only have those few songs that I got for free on that service so it picks the same one every single time to play when it can't determine that I was using Google Play or Spotify. I don't even like the music it is playing. I tried to disable music downloads over cellular and cleared my download cache so that Apple Music couldn't download the song but I was till in WiFi range when leaving so it still ended up playing that song. I finally gave up and just subscribed to Apple Music. Now it at least picks the correct music streaming app.

    The solution to this seems obvious to me. Apple should allow setting a default music streaming app so that when you get into a car that tries to resume playing music and the phone can't determine what you used to stream music last, The phone will choose the music app that you actually use.