Has this shit changed since its first week? It was straight ass when I used it lol
I'll be keeping it. There's nothing game-breaking for me... a ton of little annoyances, but one imagines those will be fixed sooner or later. The big broad strokes work for me and that's all that matters.Ok it's been more than a month. There should be a poll of who liked Apple Music and who doesn't.
jeez this blew up yesterday.
I don't get the furor (well aside from furor and internet going hand in hand). Acoustic matching isn't better than tag matching or vice versa. They totally serve different purposes.
The benefit to acoustic matching is that you can have shit tags and still get your files in the cloud (and tags "fixed" in the process). The downside to acoustic matching is that when bad matches happen (and they certainly do, often), there is NO way to fix them as you can't change the matched "properties" at all.
The benefit to tag matching is that you have (in theory, and at least better than acoustic) total control over how your music is matched. Bad match? (in theory) just fix the tags. The down side to tag matching is that if your tags are for shit, and/or happen to not match the stuff the service has on file, then you might have a rough go of it.
People are acting like acoustic matching is objectively and entirely better than tag matching. As someone who has a bunch of clean versions matched in iTunes Match, I heartily disagree. They both have their ups and downs. Match uses acoustic matching because it needs to. They can't go giving you free DRM free songs because you cleverly named a bunch of your library to songs you wanted. Apple Music does tag matching, likely because it's much faster, and (again in theory) gives you a little better control in case things weren't matched properly.
I'll be keeping it. There's nothing game-breaking for me... a ton of little annoyances, but one imagines those will be fixed sooner or later. The big broad strokes work for me and that's all that matters.
I think they should either use both or give us the option to upload our copy instead of defaulting to their matched copy. Even after correcting my tags in some cases I can't get the proper version of the song I'm looking for
100% yes. I've been saying this from day one. They need a "Report a Problem" like from Maps. "Bad Match? Force Upload." sort of thing. Would solve 100% of problems in Match. Music the worst case is you'd potentially end up with duplicates.. i.e. your file actually exists on Music but won't match for some reason.. still better than giving you the wrong song though.
If Apple Music matches meta data.. Does it only match song name and artist?
Half the time it feels like the matching system simply ignores the album. If I upload 15 songs with the same artist and album name, they obviously belong to one album... And not a bunch of songs from greatest hits, singles and remastered albums.
When I first turned on iCloud Library on my iTunes, for some strange reason it "matched" my purchased music from iTunes, and some songs were even "Uploaded" claiming they weren't in the iTunes Store. Mind you, this was both recent and old purchase so I just assumed it was a major bug and turned the damn thing off.
Now that it has been a month, have things improved? Can I turn it back on and will it work? I like the idea of being able to search for any song and play it on demand even if I don't own it. Makes some nice road trips a little fun, but the fact that iCloud Library is so buggy turns me completely off. I purchase my music primary and I'm not a total fan of streaming because of the whole data limits I have with my carrier, but the convenience is still nice.
So, any improvements done so far?
jeez this blew up yesterday.
I don't get the furor (well aside from furor and internet going hand in hand). Acoustic matching isn't better than tag matching or vice versa. They totally serve different purposes.
I currently have both itunes match and apple music. So far, there's been no issues with my library since AM opened up last month but I am super scared of what might happen if I cancelled itunes match, lol. it seems that's the trigger that really screws up libraries with the AM matching being more finicky. At least from what I can piece together from reading bits her and there online.
I'm tempted to sign up for iTunes Match again..
If I have both iTunes Match and iCloud Music.. What type of matching system will be used?
It's good when it works. It is shitty when it doesn't
For example, with iCloud library you cannot tell your phone to synch any music with iTunes anymore. The idea is that it stores the entire library in the cloud and you can stream or download it to your phone.
This is great if your connection is good. You have access to your entire library and playlists everywhere. Plugging your phone into your computer doesn't even synch music anymore at all.
But if iCloud makes any mistakes, like being unable to upload or match a song, then there is literally no way to manually get it into your music app and playlists on your phone now without turning off iCloud library. I have a bunch of songs like this... Ineligible for whatever reason and stuck on my computer. What's funny is I am fairly positive some of these were on my phone before update, and now are unplayable on phone but not sure
Acoustic matching is by far better than tag matching. It's the single biggest reason people's albums are getting screwed up on AM, and why people have had much more success with iTunes Match
While Apple Music may have gotten off to a less than stellar start, Apple’s 24/7 radio station Beats 1 has lived up to the hype, quickly becoming the most praised part of the service. But it may not be the only official station from Apple for long. Apple has the ability to expand its lineup of Beats radio stations at will, according to sources with knowledge of the situation.
As part of the deal it struck with the major labels for Apple Music Radio, Apple has licenses for up to five additional stations like Beats 1, without having to renegotiate with the labels. That means Apple could launch a Beats 2 station headquartered in Australia or Asia, allowing it to provide live radio around the clock (Beats 1 is only live 12 hours a day). Or Apple could take a more targeted approach and produce holiday stations.
While few expected a radio station on Apple Music to be anything other than an afterthought, Apple has shown that it can take an aging format and repurpose it with great success, despite a few bumps along the way. The Verge has also learned that the per-play rate Apple pays the labels for music played on Beats 1 is "better than Pandora," according to a source. Given the reception to Beats 1, it seems likely that Apple would want to expand its Beats lineup in the near future. Apple, of course, declined to comment.
As for Apple Music as a whole, the labels are "pretty pleased" with its progress so far, but are still taking a wait and see approach, according to industry sources. While Apple Music has gained a "substantial" number of users, according to sources, the labels are reluctant to make any judgements on the service until after the trial period ends. One source noted that until Apple Music’s trial period concludes in October, all of its subscribers are only seen as "trialists" by the labels.
The good news for Apple is that, so far, there has been no considerable drop in iTunes downloads due to Apple Music’s launch. Sources indicate that although iTunes downloads are still decreasing (as they have been for some time), that decrease hasn’t noticeably accelerated during the first month of Apple Music. That’s not to say cannibalization isn’t expected down the line. The labels realize that as more and more people sign up for Apple Music, the faster downloads will decrease. As one source put it, there are "choppy waters ahead," but if Apple signs up enough subscribers, the payoff for the music industry could be big in the long run. Though it's highly unlikely that even Apple can return it back to its CD-sales heyday.
It seems Apple is indeed considering and preparing for a potential expansion Beats 1 with new Beats radio stations, as the company has registered domains like beats2.com.cn, beats2.hk, and beats4.com.ru in various countries around the world. Beats 1 is broadcast worldwide, but in the future, Apple may wish to offer stations that cater to different languages and music tastes around the world.
so the apple music twitter said that there is an exclusive stream of dr dre's new album on thursday from 6-9pm pt on apple music. what do i have to do to be able to listen to it? i already have upgraded my iPhone and macbook so that i can listen to the beats 1 radio station. will i need to be a subscriber to be able to listen to the stream of the album?
No, You don't need to be a subscriber to stream Beats 1, just go to the Radio tab.
yeah, i'm aware of that. just wondered how album streams work on the service. i didn't know if that is a separate part of the service that you have to be a subscriber for. if they are just streaming it on beats 1 then i know that i'm good to go. they didn't make that clear.
Apples music deals allow for new Beats stations at any time
http://www.theverge.com/2015/8/4/9096299/apple--music-beats-1-stations
They really ought to do something in Japan, their offering now is way behind LINE and dHits. Both those services are lacking in ways, but Apple Music has maybe half the selection the others have, especially when it comes to the currently trending music. I suppose that's why they haven't bothered adding any Japanese curators like Oricon or Natalie, they would just be empty lists.
Wish they would have spent some of that money on content here rather than advertising.
I guess I'll hop back on spotify. Clean installed to Windows 10 and I'm not really interested in installing that iTunes bloatware again and I don't have an iPhone. I'll check back later, Apple - Get your act together.
I'm hoping Apple Music sticks around to improve.
sucks, but you have a point. they need a WAY lighter weight client than iTunes to hook people.
unless the service actually runs a deep loss for apple, I can't see why it wouldn't stick around. IMHO the only "questionable" part of the service fiscally is Beats 1, which in the ultimate coincidence is the one part of the service people universally agree is great.
Plus the 2M family subs is actually a good sign. In theory conversion rates to paid on those should be extremely high. There is almost no benefit to starting up a trial family subscription. So in theory those 2M trials are there because they intend on continuing (I know we are).
The remaining 9M is the big question. Still, even if apple manages only 10% of those... that's still likely almost 2-3M paying subs in the first 3 months.. Not bad.
I think the most concerning part would be that it would seem apple didn't expand the market.. almost certainly the majority of those subs just came off of Spotify, Beats, etc. I really don't know how apple will actually expand the paid market. Family plan maybe? (which is still a HUGE value to 3+ user families compared to other services) With youtube and spotify, people simply don't want to pay for music. period. it sucks, but I don't really know how that can change at this point, short of artists and labels actually removing content from free tiers.
Eddy cue says they have 11 million subscribes;
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/06/apple-music-11-million-users/
Eddy cue says they have 11 million subscribes;
http://www.macrumors.com/2015/08/06/apple-music-11-million-users/
Genexus? It shows up for me in US. What region are you in?I can't add the new Fear Factory album. Fuck.
I can't add the new Fear Factory album. Fuck.
I was contemplating making a thread for it but figured it wouldn't get much play on GAF. What do you guys think? I've been loving it, might be their best since Obsolete.Genexus? It shows up for me in US. What region are you in?