• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Apple Music Experience Random Thoughts

Thanks for the porn.

Headroom Desktop Amp (now since a dead product). I had hesitation buying from renowned companies that were nevertheless based out of China, and liked that they were essentially from my second home state.

Tube amps interest me, but I was worried about maneuverability from location to location. Would be fun to do for a truly dedicated listening room...and I do get envious of you folks.




Schitt makes some great stuff,.


Schiit Audio, Headphone amps and DACs made in USA.

They have a more portable "tube" style amp as well. I love the stuff.
 
They stole this function from other services...

Beats, Xbox Music? Whom? I'm genuinely curious. Spotify didn't have that.


With a few exceptions yes. One thing I hate about the music industry.. their "exclusivity" bull**** on online services.

I really hate that too. If they aren't careful it's going to become so popular that they end up destroying their own success. But if there's one thing the industry is known for it's finding a way to screw up something good.

And you cant export your Spotify lists to the new service... Apple blocked that ability rather quickly.

That was one inevitable problem, so it's now a matter of how quickly and easily one can replicate the experience. Particularly with your favorited tracks.

I'll be posting more about that later, though. Too much to say on iOS.

No poor programming. iCloud has been a disaster from day one. Uptime is well below industry standards, access is horrible especially from non Apple devices and then there is the lack of basic security until recently. Also there are constant reports of problems with the whole match thing.. whatever they call it now.

For their music services, relatively speaking the cloud services were well-meaning and decently executed. iTunes Match, though occasionally glitchy, was largely less of a cluster**** than it could have been. There are problems, as I don't automatically trust it to recognize the correct track from the correct album automatically, but it's been good thus far.

That being said, when you introduce Apple Music to the mix, then it has become an incomprehensible mixture of digital handshakes.

Wait what.. iTunes has had functionality and a logical layout.. ever? :)

Largely since the beginning. Winamp and SoundJam MP were much more focused on being playlist driven than library driven. This became incredibly problematic when we started to have bigger libraries. iTunes and Foobar 2000 (well, with some deal of effort with Foobar) were better able to deal with managing entire libraries.

The apex of iTunes usability was between the advent of the smart playlist mmixed with folder management.

Essentially, the design of Spotify, minus the Smart Playlist issue, is just about where iTunes was at its best in terms of design and functionality. The look and feel of Spotify is probably where I was hoping Apple would move iTunes back to being.

Otherwise, when it comes to my own tracks, I have essentially done the following.

1) iTunes: Purchase some music here. Podcast and iTunes U management. Avoid for music playing.

2) Foobar 2000. Spend an afternoon to design the UI to function more like a library manager....use to playback both music I own as well as the trove of lecture materials I have through The Teaching Company (now called The Great Courses) and old recordings of scholars that have been posted on the web.

3) Spotify. Use as exposure point for new music and artists.

As a result, I used Foobar 2000 and Spotify as often as I used to use iTunes. The reason being iTunes has turned into an unorganized mess.
 
Beats, Xbox Music? Whom? I'm genuinely curious. Spotify didn't have that.

They took it from Beats yea, but Beats stole the idea from others. I know Nokia Music had it.. that is now Xbox Music, and I signed up for Rdio and Deezer to test them and they both had it.. this was years for Deezer and a month ago for Rdio.

I really hate that too. If they aren't careful it's going to become so popular that they end up destroying their own success. But if there's one thing the industry is known for it's finding a way to screw up something good.

It is also counter productive. I thought the idea of being in the business was to sell as much as possible right? So why make it exclusive? Sure you might get a few extra people signing up for the service, but chances are most will just pirate the music since they cant get it on their service. I know that Taylor Swift has lost a ton of money due to piracy because of her Apple fetish.

For their music services, relatively speaking the cloud services were well-meaning and decently executed. iTunes Match, though occasionally glitchy, was largely less of a cluster**** than it could have been. There are problems, as I don't automatically trust it to recognize the correct track from the correct album automatically, but it's been good thus far.

You should read the complaints on the Apple forums. The following problem has been in since day one.. You own a song, it has bad words in.. you do a match with iCloud and suddenly you get the censored version. There are also complaints about people getting lossless music downgraded in iTunes Match and so on. It is so bad that some reviewers and people are refusing to turn on the iCloud match in the new service because it might screw with their music on their devices. Problem is, that this makes large parts of the new service unusuable, as it is a requirement to have iCloud match active.

Oh and it also requires of course that iCloud is actually working.. which can be a crap shoot often.

Largely since the beginning. Winamp and SoundJam MP were much more focused on being playlist driven than library driven. This became incredibly problematic when we started to have bigger libraries. iTunes and Foobar 2000 (well, with some deal of effort with Foobar) were better able to deal with managing entire libraries.

Yes I understand, but the interface in iTunes has slowly become more and more annoying (like when they made the burn to CD option basically hidden), and if you are on a Windows Machine, iTunes is basically malware. It is bloated, slow and actually slows down the machine more than anti-virus.

Essentially, the design of Spotify, minus the Smart Playlist issue, is just about where iTunes was at its best in terms of design and functionality. The look and feel of Spotify is probably where I was hoping Apple would move iTunes back to being.

Only if Spoitfy continues to trounce Apple as a streaming service. Apple tens to steal design and ideas from popular services and competitors and then make them "magical and innovative".. much like the choosing in Apple Music. That is why I expect that the iPhone 6s will have wireless charging in it .. and this will be massively innovative according to Apple.

1) iTunes: Purchase some music here. Podcast and iTunes U management. Avoid for music playing.

2) Foobar 2000. Spend an afternoon to design the UI to function more like a library manager....use to playback both music I own as well as the trove of lecture materials I have through The Teaching Company (now called The Great Courses) and old recordings of scholars that have been posted on the web.

3) Spotify. Use as exposure point for new music and artists.

Mine is more simple.. Use Spotify free.. if there are songs I cant get there.. pirate them.. which is rare now days. I dont listen to much music though, but if I did, then I would probably pay for Spotify or Google Play Music or Xbox Music, Rdio or Deezer.. never ever for Apple Music. Just cant justify the 10 euro cost a month when I listen to music like once a week if that.
 
Night 1: I like the look. The balls are helpful in trying to figure out my music interests. Seems to have similar selection of music as Spotify. May have issues finding playlists of similar build to my existing Spotify playlists.

Day 1: First attempt in the wild at work. On separate laptop. Oh great. Apple's iCloud system says I am using too many computers when I am trying to create a playlist with Apple Music tracks. How is this still a thing with the music industry? Don't they know I am not a thief if I own or use more than 4 computers? Is this Apple's lack of foresight at work here?

Why is it that when I select a track I like and "Love it" there's no way I can find the tracks I marked? Not even a separate smart playlist works with this, despite fulfilling the rules of the smart playlist.

How can a company screw up helping an individual user figure out how to use a basic music streaming service? If I can't figure out how all of Apple's pieces interact with each other (iTunes proper, iTunes Match, iCloud, Apple Music), how is the average person supposed to figure this out?

As a fan of the traditional iTunes layout and functionality, I'm becoming dumbfounded as to how iTunes has become such a disaster.

Thank goodness this is a three month trial. So far I am keeping Spotify on the default.

i wont use any apple apps just due to how horrible itunes is,which is their main app to connect to nearly everything.when it first came out,it was fast,simple,and did everything needed.then they kept changing it,now it is slow as hell,crash prone,and restricts alot of what users can do.

i see all other apple software and services following that trend.but if it really came down to it and mp3 download services and streaming services all went to crap,i would rather get an old fisher boombox and record songs off the radio on t cassette,well atleast until the hipsters see it and start using it.
 
They took it from Beats yea

Interesting. It is indeed a good way to push people to artists they hadn't heard of (assuming it was properly done, of course). With Apple Music, albeit I am just getting cracking with the three month trial, I am not so confident it is going to be delivering truly tailored results. For instance, with each track "loved" and added to the services' "My Music" section, Apple is claiming that it will improve its fit for you. However, after I got done selecting a dozen or so artists upon entering the trial, I noticed that what it was mostly doing at the "For You" tab was just throw me into the collection of artists (or ones so similar and popular I was bound to know of their work anyway) I had selected at that set-up screen.

It is also counter productive. I thought the idea of being in the business was to sell as much as possible right? So why make it exclusive?

Well, it's a two-way success thing. For the streaming service provider, it's a means to suck away the competition (at least, initially). For the artist, it's a means to get more money. As for Taylor Swift, I thought she was being a duplicitous little turd. She had a hissy fit because Spotify wasn't paying her enough. Then a short time later she becomes the face for Tidal, which provided absolutely no benefit for the consumer, at twice the cost. We were supposed to feel sorry for her and all of the already-successful artists out there who wanted more money. I wasn't having it. Then she signs with Apple Music, because of the higher fee structure. Then she has a hissy fit because Apple wasn't providing fees during the 3 month trial process, and proceeds to write this silly open letter to Apple on behalf of not only rich girls like herself, but also the poor, starving indie artist. Yeah, right, Taylor; like I buy that for a minute. But pretty young, rich white girls get the sympathy vote, I suppose.


You own a song, it has bad words in.. you do a match with iCloud and suddenly you get the censored version. There are also complaints about people getting lossless music downgraded in iTunes Match and so on. It is so bad that some reviewers and people are refusing to turn on the iCloud match in the new service because it might screw with their music on their devices. Problem is, that this makes large parts of the new service unusuable, as it is a requirement to have iCloud match active.

This is what I am talking about when I say nearly incomprehensible series of digital handshakes. iTunes Match, worked well, but not well enough for me to actually delete the tracks to get the 256 kbps AAC version from the store. It's basically give it two cheers, but not more.

The Apple Music-->iCloud issue is different.

Oh and it also requires of course that iCloud is actually working.. which can be a crap shoot often.

Or, in my case, a reboot and resyncing process for seemingly no reason whatsoever.


Yes I understand, but the interface in iTunes has slowly become more and more annoying (like when they made the burn to CD option basically hidden), and if you are on a Windows Machine, iTunes is basically malware. It is bloated, slow and actually slows down the machine more than anti-virus.

I agree on the first part, but not the malware bit. I experienced more clunk and whatnot with Winamp's last years than I did with iTunes. However, it has basically created a problem where one did not exist prior. Before it functioned essentially like Spotify does today, even though it had a movie and tv store, iPod, iPad syncing capabilities. But for some reason because people said there was too much bloat, Apple decides to solve the "issue" by creating a series of confusing navigation options. The traditional layout no longer existed, and in order to get there temporarily, you had to keep clicking on a tab, and then when you would search within your own library, it would once again fling you into another view of the library. You know, not even Winamp or Foobar had as good of a search bar as iTunes did, but when I was continually forced to find way way again each time I searched for a file, I just moved on.


Mine is more simple.. Use Spotify free..

There's stuff about Apple Music I like much better than Spotify (including smart playlist functionality), but with the multitude of navigation & syncing issues, and the lack of user-submitted playlists it's going to be difficult to sell me on jumping ship.
 
Interesting. It is indeed a good way to push people to artists they hadn't heard of (assuming it was properly done, of course). With Apple Music, albeit I am just getting cracking with the three month trial, I am not so confident it is going to be delivering truly tailored results. For instance, with each track "loved" and added to the services' "My Music" section, Apple is claiming that it will improve its fit for you. However, after I got done selecting a dozen or so artists upon entering the trial, I noticed that what it was mostly doing at the "For You" tab was just throw me into the collection of artists (or ones so similar and popular I was bound to know of their work anyway) I had selected at that set-up screen.

It all comes down to algorithms.. something Apple are nutritiously bad at making. If they used the same ones from iTunes radio then omfgs .. they were soo bad. Other services that I have noticed that have okay algorithms are of course Spotify, but also Nokia Mix Music (now Xbox I think).. Rdio also seems to pretty accurate in predicting what music I would like based on who/what I chose when I started it up. Google Music was not half bad when I had the 3 month for 3 euros trial. My main issue with this service is their PC based player..it utterly sucks.

Well, it's a two-way success thing. For the streaming service provider, it's a means to suck away the competition (at least, initially). For the artist, it's a means to get more money. As for Taylor Swift, I thought she was being a duplicitous little turd. She had a hissy fit because Spotify wasn't paying her enough. Then a short time later she becomes the face for Tidal, which provided absolutely no benefit for the consumer, at twice the cost. We were supposed to feel sorry for her and all of the already-successful artists out there who wanted more money. I wasn't having it. Then she signs with Apple Music, because of the higher fee structure. Then she has a hissy fit because Apple wasn't providing fees during the 3 month trial process, and proceeds to write this silly open letter to Apple on behalf of not only rich girls like herself, but also the poor, starving indie artist. Yeah, right, Taylor; like I buy that for a minute. But pretty young, rich white girls get the sympathy vote, I suppose.

Well this might not be true at all. Spotify claims to pay about 75% of the income back to rights holders.. most say it is a bit over 70%.

Now Apple on the other hand claims 71.5 to 73%, but if you look at the material that has been leaked, then it looks that non major lablels and artists who have made special deals with Apple... they get as little as 58%.

Apple Is Paying Just 58% of Streaming Royalties Back to Indie Artists... - Digital Music NewsDigital Music News

This was of course before they changed the 0% in the free trial period.. but even here other sources say that what Apple pays the artists is about the same as Spotify has on its free service. Miss Swift looks more and more like a hypocrite and Apple employee.

The Apple Music-->iCloud issue is different.

Actually not any more. All your music in match is stored in... drumroll.. your iCloud account. There are simply far too many hoops and loops in the whole Apple experience these days to make it easy to use.

I agree on the first part, but not the malware bit.

I service a lot of domestic PCs and in many, if not most cases, when there is a slowdown/issues that is not attributed to users clicking on **** they should not have, then there are two main culprits. Free anti-virus software gone crazy, usually Avast.. or iTunes sucking the life out of the resources. And in most cases people dont even use iTunes but got it installed to fix their iPad that crashed or needed to update their iPad because iOS update was way too big for their 16 GB iPad. iTunes is malware on Windows PCs.. pure and simple. At least they stopped trying to install Safari..
 
It all comes down to algorithms.. something Apple are nutritiously bad at making.

Speaking of algorithms, until I get further along in duplicating some of my playlists in Apple Music, it came to me that I was ignoring one of the big accusations of Trent Reznor and Eddie Cue about the existing services: humans do a better job at mixing playlists than intelligently designed programs.

I'll put that to the test today and early this week.

At first I believed this, but now I'm not so sure.

At first glance the playlists are potentially intelligently curated by human hands, but they are also very small. Most Apple Music playlists are between 12-16 tracks, with some that are larger (but not significantly so). This gives you roughly the length of a double album, which is perhaps a great introduction, a great mix, but it is rather small. On top of that, Apple Music playlists are segmented into maybe 2-3 categories: 1) Intro to Artist playlist, 2) Genre playlist, 3) Mood playlist.

Compare that to Spotify. Spotify playlists vary immensely in length. Some are perhaps 8-16 or 20 tracks long, but there are a large number that are 50-80 tracks long, and many that are larger by the hundreds. Spotify's playlists in general are segmented in the same three ways, but they are by no means restricted to any one rationale or length. Many persons create a discography playlist with every single available track of an artist's profile. A big contributor to that is Spotify is an entirely open social environment. Anyone who creates a playlist can make it public, which throws it into the search results. Whatever makes that person tick, you're bound to get that person's music selection and no length restrictions apply. Furthermore, individuals can get into a feedback loop by submitting playlists to friends, who are in turn able to edit and add to the playlist. This "collaborative playlist" feature is a potentially powerful feature, especially for anyone with a group of friends who are music aficionados.

As it stands, Apple Music is a closed shop, responding to only those artists and curators with the gates to the kingdom. It both restricts playlist creativity as it does the length.

For instance, the likelihood that themed playlists will fill the Apple Music catalogue is incredibly small. Will there be a "small town" playlist in which songs crossing genre borders written about or in honor of small towns or villages? Probably not.

Normally Apple has said it resorted to these closed shops in order to increase stability and security for the end user (and of course people can dispute the accuracy of Apple's claims). However, when the end user is only interfacing with a company's streaming service with no opportunity to mess with the stability or security of another user, those concerns no longer apply. It would behoove Apple to be influenced by Spotify, not only in terms of user interface, but also in terms of the listening experience.

That being said, Apple is hedging its bets on the idea that the artists and industry insiders can create better playlists than an algorithm. Perhaps so, and perhaps I will find the playlists to be most enjoyable. However, if we accept humans to be superior to machines, it would also follow that we need to allow more humans to aid in the enterprise.
 
Last edited:
I decided to see if I could find some theme on small towns. I have. Potential issues: restrictions on genre and artists, small track length. Alan Jackson's small town tunes. "Simple Life" playlist--country music genre. 11-13 songs. This latter example may be bordering as outside my stated theme.

Outside my theme, but of note. Americana playlist shows much more promise. 25 tracks, variety of artists potentially outside of my own musical awareness.

Keep in mind that if I found no results or the results as inadequate, I would have no remedy to the solution but to create my own. I also wouldn't have an ability to publish it. I also would have no hope of the lists improving from an outside source, as everyone else is on the same boat I am-not granted access to change the status-quo.
 
Last edited:
After some thought, I would say that Apple Music Playlists have promise, but it is thus far too reliant upon the active nature of its curators to be a competitive environment for Spotify.

As I said before, playlists are locked down to Apple-sanctioned curators and are typically limited to 10-16 tracks, with few exceptions on the greater or lesser side.

It is still early (only the first week), but one wonders how active Eddie Cue and company are going to be in tweaking existing playlists and uploading new playlists.

Of the greatest creativity, Apple borrows a page from its competitor Spotify, by creating playlists based on mood and activity. When the user clicks on "chilling out" (one of 20 existing categories), the user is greeted with a listing of current playlist options.

Chill Playlists.jpg

Dancing.jpg

To those unfamiliar with Spotify, which sports both its own sanctioned algorithm-created playlists as well as any user-submitted playlists, the existing selection from Apple will seem rather sparse. This is underscored when it is reiterated that playlists typically fall within traditional redbook CD listening restrictions (50-80 minutes). Think of how quickly any given user will blow through the "Chill out" playlist selection, let alone the Dancing section (which as of tonight is only at 8 playlists). Spotify has had a number of years to create the myriad of playlists at its disposal and Apple has had one week, but end users are confronted with a choice all the same. Only the here and now matters, and Apple's restricted playlist options push me to believe that updates will be disappointingly slow if not merely gradual. The disparity becomes even worse when users are confronted with Spotify's ever-growing and evolving marketplace of music sharing.
 
Last edited:
After some thought, I would say that Apple Music Playlists have promise, but it is thus far too reliant upon the active nature of its curators to be a competitive environment for Spotify.

As I said before, playlists are locked down to Apple-sanctioned curators and are typically limited to 10-16 tracks, with few exceptions on the greater or lesser side.

It is still early (only the first week), but one wonders how active Eddie Cue and company are going to be in tweaking existing playlists and uploading new playlists.

Of the greatest creativity, Apple borrows a page from its competitor Spotify, by creating playlists based on mood and activity. When the user clicks on "chilling out" (one of 20 existing categories), the user is greeted with a listing of current playlist options.

View attachment 67186797

View attachment 67186799

To those unfamiliar with Spotify, which sports both its own sanctioned algorithm-created playlists as well as any user-submitted playlists, the existing selection from Apple will seem rather sparse. This is underscored when it is reiterated that playlists typically fall within traditional redbook CD listening restrictions (50-80 minutes). Think of how quickly any given user will blow through the "Chill out" playlist selection, let alone the Dancing section (which as of tonight is only at 8 playlists). Spotify has had a number of years to create the myriad of playlists at its disposal and Apple has had one week, but end users are confronted with a choice all the same. Only the here and now matters, and Apple's restricted playlist options push me to believe that updates will be disappointingly slow if not merely gradual. The disparity becomes even worse when users are confronted with Spotify's ever-growing and evolving marketplace of music sharing.

remember to uncheck renewal in the app.. for some reason it is buried deep in the app and not exactly easy to find.. oh no I know the reason for that. If you dont then Apple will start taking money from you :)

As for playlists, there are tons of complaints about the limits of the playlists. Spotify is great with playlists because they create some but the users create tons in all categories. Apple Music has no future if it is Apple and its rich celebs that continue to make these limited playlists.
 
remember to uncheck renewal in the app.. for some reason it is buried deep in the app and not exactly easy to find.. oh no I know the reason for that. If you dont then Apple will start taking money from you :)

As for playlists, there are tons of complaints about the limits of the playlists. Spotify is great with playlists because they create some but the users create tons in all categories. Apple Music has no future if it is Apple and its rich celebs that continue to make these limited playlists.

I forgot to highlight that I saw an exchange with a Mac user and an Apple tech support specialist. When discussing the family plan and how it interacted with the Apple ID, the user was told that the device limitation continued to be upheld despite multiple persons being on a plan. Each Apple ID is allowed 5 traditional computers, but a grand total of 10 devices. As a family plan is registered under a single Apple ID, the device limitations still apply. Given that the plan is up to 6 persons, it becomes nearly impossible for me to believe that a normal-sized American family (4-5 persons) could have their devices authorized under the plan, let alone of much use. I checked and by giving my own 3GS to my father and putting my music on his Nano, putting music on my brother's cellphone, and my own devices hit that 5 "machines" limitation and had a total of 7-8 devices out of 10. I found out on the 1st of July my work computer could not be authorized due to this. If I had to account for any more devices that my other family members owned, I would have been SOL if I signed up for the family plan, and that's just accounting for a portion of 4 persons' Apple Music-capable devices.

Meanwhile, I have Spotify installed on all of our devices and there's no such limitation built into the system. As far as I am concerned, this is an archaic limitation that was sought by the music industry and irrationally maintained by Apple long after those requirements made any sense by analysts understanding what consumers would tolerate. Today, Apple customers not only have a computer or two that can use iTunes and one iPod; they also have iPhones and iPads. This is just punishing their consumers for being good consumers. It's utterly senseless.

I won't forget to uncheck renewal. It becomes difficult to imagine how well I will be able to keep up with what AM is evolving into when it is not based on a freemium model like Spotify is. As the debut of this product has shown, there's only so much a keynote can accurately show with the user experience. Prior to this, Apple Keynotes, while understandably exaggerative, were at least pretty good at showing you how the experience will be. This was especially apparent when one considers the utter lack of attention toward what Apple Music looked and functioned like on the Mac or on Windows in that keynote. Perhaps in hindsight that was a clue that something was wrong; I don't know. All I know is Apple Music, while confusing on both platforms and lacking in curated playlists, operated much better on iOS than it has on traditional platforms with iTunes.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom