Yesterday we had the iOS 8.3 update. The bug was no more finger identification? I thought that was new?
In the iOS 8.4 upgrade to the mobile operating system we will see the Beats Music Sevice, which could easily become the biggest and most successful streaming in the world.
This is interesting, I always did really wonder the real reason why Apple would purchase a company like Beats. Seemed kind of rash for a company that is usually so calculated. Now I see why, it's because of the music streaming service. Big company like apple slapping its name on a big name company like Beats oughta give it a lot of traction, right?
What I'm wondering is how Beats stands out from the competition. Spotify is huge, while I don't use it, nearly all my friends do. What makes beats better than Spotify? Surprisingly, Tidal has gained a lot of mainstream rep as of late. It's easy to see why a mainstream person who doesn't know a lot about the whole sound science thing would buy into Tidal. I would be curious to see what Beats does to compete in an already crowded market.
However, I did find this doing some research: http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-asks-for-exclusive-tunes-to-amp-up-beats-musics-appeal/ maybe their angle is to get music that no one else has. Maybe they'll also decide to step up their file quality and start streaming Tidal quality music? Those two would be enough for the average Joe to cancel his Spotify subscription and stream with Beats instead perhaps...
This is interesting, I always did really wonder the real reason why Apple would purchase a company like Beats. Seemed kind of rash for a company that is usually so calculated. Now I see why, it's because of the music streaming service. Big company like apple slapping its name on a big name company like Beats oughta give it a lot of traction, right?
What I'm wondering is how Beats stands out from the competition. Spotify is huge, while I don't use it, nearly all my friends do. What makes beats better than Spotify? Surprisingly, Tidal has gained a lot of mainstream rep as of late. It's easy to see why a mainstream person who doesn't know a lot about the whole sound science thing would buy into Tidal. I would be curious to see what Beats does to compete in an already crowded market.
However, I did find this doing some research: http://www.cnet.com/news/apple-asks-for-exclusive-tunes-to-amp-up-beats-musics-appeal/ maybe their angle is to get music that no one else has. Maybe they'll also decide to step up their file quality and start streaming Tidal quality music? Those two would be enough for the average Joe to cancel his Spotify subscription and stream with Beats instead perhaps...
Just because Spotify is popular that doesn't mean it's ever turned a cent of profit yet. There are plenty of articles about this, here's an example of one that's somewhat recent:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/26/business/spotify-discloses-revenue-but-not-its-future-plans.html
Thanks for the article, streaming is always an interesting debate to follow. OK, so maybe Spotify doesn't make a lot of profit, I'm curious to see what Apple does with Beats, because Apple is generally pretty good with money. Figuring out how to sell products, and make lots of money off it. What will they do with Beats that will make someone choose to stream with Beats, along with having Apple make money.
If I remember correctly Beats acquired MOG and then Apple acquired Beats. I really liked MOG, I never got into the Beats by Dre trend, it was more like suckers for Dre in my mind. I know audiophile is just another word for sucker but c'mon those Beats by Dre headphones are fill in the blank... Anyways I'm into TIDAL streaming at 1141 Kbps, and the thing is, the claim that 1141 sounds better than 320 is debatable..depends on how the tunes are recorded and studio mastering. For example garage band recorded music is not comparable to Chesky Records material, but most audiophiles already know that...I think..sometimes I wonder
If I remember correctly Beats acquired MOG and then Apple acquired Beats. I really liked MOG, I never got into the Beats by Dre trend, it was more like suckers for Dre in my mind. I know audiophile is just another word for sucker but c'mon those Beats by Dre headphones are fill in the blank... Anyways I'm into TIDAL streaming at 1141 Kbps, and the thing is, the claim that 1141 sounds better than 320 is debatable..depends on how the tunes are recorded and studio mastering. For example garage band recorded music is not comparable to Chesky Records material, but most audiophiles already know that...I think..sometimes I wonder
http://consequenceofsound.net/aux-out/a-tidal-wave-of-skepticism/
Pardon the pun in the title, it's an interesting article on tidal streaming. It's also true for the rest of the streaming industry as well
Wouldn't it be great to live in a time that had 20 million Chesky records, binaural recorded tunes for headphones streaming at DSD quality for an ad free five dollars a month? That's a nice pipe dream... The music streaming market has a little something for everybody. If Colin McLaughlin thinks TIDAL is overrated, so what, the freebie market is there for him. The high end, high dollar, niche market wants higher than CD quality... DSD download sites, something for everybody.
Check this out http://soundexpert.org/encoders-256-kbps
Above 5.0 – all sound artifacts will be beyond threshold of human perception with corresponding perception margin
"The ratings are based solely on results of blind listening tests when listeners don't know the particular device they test. So the values are completely unbiased and free from any marketing and advertising noise."
Yesterday we had the iOS 8.3 update. The bug was no more finger identification? I thought that was new?
In the iOS 8.4 upgrade to the mobile operating system we will see the Beats Music Sevice, which could easily become the biggest and most successful streaming in the world.
I will be curious to see how this plays out (pun intended). Apple is the instant 800 lb gorilla in this mix (yes, yet another pun).
If Apple provides a viable hi resolution music service for $10-$15 a month I think they will overwhelm Tidal within a year or two. I do wonder just how large a market there is for a hi resolution subscription service but if Apple is going in that direction I'm guessing they are pretty confident. Other major players (man I am just FULL of bad puns today) aren't going to be sitting on their hands and letting Apple or Tidal take money off the table without a fight. I'm thinking specifically of Amazon and Google but anyone with a meaningful stake will be watching and reacting. It's definitely going to be interesting!!!
I do wonder just how large a market there is for a hi resolution subscription service but if Apple is going in that direction I'm guessing they are pretty confident. Other major players (man I am just FULL of bad puns today) aren't going to be sitting on their hands and letting Apple or Tidal take money off the table without a fight. I'm thinking specifically of Amazon and Google but anyone with a meaningful stake will be watching and reacting. It's definitely going to be interesting!!!
As stated in this article (that I mostly agree with) http://consequenceofsound.net/aux-out/a-tidal-wave-of-skepticism/ there really isn't much of a market. Most people that aren't adults will simply continue to pirate music as they have done since the invention of iTunes, and file sharing. They aren't going to shell out money every month for "higher sound quality" most of the younger folk simply don't care about quality(even I myself am skeptical of hearing a difference between 320kbps MP3 and CD quality music). The only people that would pay for it really are people that are older, have larger and more money to spend. How many of those people are audiophiles, or care enough about quality? Not many. Will some kind of sound science snow job make someone switch from either paid or free spotify to paying a lot more for a little extra sound quality they can't even hear the difference between? Doubtful. Amazon doesn't have to worry as much about music streaming. Most people that use it, use it because it's included with amazon prime.
Going back to that article, people will start paying for music, when they have a big reason to pay for it, instead of downloading it illegally.
I'm thinking that even if this steaming system comes with the next update, Apple will also have a player for Android at the Google App Store. I can't see Apple shooting themselves in the foot by limiting their subscribers with only running the iOS operating system.
Still I am wondering as Apple has been shooting themselves in the foot for about 30 years or so?
It will be a component of Itunes. If this was possible it would allow people with any PC or Mac as well as folks with old iPhone 4s to stll update their ITunes for awhile even though the iOS system of updates has left them behind already.
So with a program for Android, and regular ITunes updates they should have everyone covered.
You would think higher bit rates would be in the works for both steaming and Apple hardware. I seem to hear slight improvements in iPods and iPhones using 24/96 files. I know the Apple internal DACs are just slightly better than 16bit and 44.1 kHz, but it may be placebo?
They will also exploit the ability to get Apple only albums from artists locking in the general public to join the cult.
I'm thinking that even if this steaming system comes with the next update, Apple will also have a player for Android at the Google App Store. I can't see Apple shooting themselves in the foot by limiting their subscribers with only running the iOS operating system.
Still I am wondering as Apple has been shooting themselves in the foot for about 30 years or so?
You would think higher bit rates would be in the works for both steaming and Apple hardware. I seem to hear slight improvements in iPods and iPhones using 24/96 files. I know the Apple internal DACs are just slightly better than 16bit and 44.1 kHz, but it may be placebo?
Yeah, definitely. Apple has a lot more power and rep in the market, compared to say, Spotify. However it depends on how apple will pay their artists/record label. Will they pay more than Spotify?
http://m.pitchfork.com/features/articles/9628-how-much-is-music-really-worth/
Bit of a long read, but a fascinating article. Talks about what music is worth nowadays, and perhaps what it should be worth. This felt appropriate for this thread.
http://m.pitchfork.com/features/articles/9628-how-much-is-music-really-worth/
Bit of a long read, but a fascinating article. Talks about what music is worth nowadays, and perhaps what it should be worth. This felt appropriate for this thread.
Could it actually come about that music rises to the top of the steaming platform based on talent and not corporate influence.
In the 1960s we saw housewives strolling the supermarkets with giant vinyl easy listening LPs placed for sale. The women had zero idea as to what the music sounded like. She could judge by the label maybe or the subgenre?
Still it was what the corporation was choosing for her to consume and her basic reaction to the colorful cover of the record, thus the main reason album covers were so concentrated on by record companies.
Could it be now we choose music NOW due to raw talent and trend?
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
