+- Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com)
+-- Forum: Devialet Chat (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Devialet-Chat)
+--- Forum: Streaming (https://devialetchat.com/Forum-Streaming)
+--- Thread: Apple music streaming service (/Thread-Apple-music-streaming-service)
Pages:
1
2
Apple music streaming service - PhilP - 02-Jun-2015
The Wall Street Journal say that Apple are about announce a music streaming service to compete with Spotify at $10/month
http://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-announce-new-music-services-1433183201
There is no mention of it being lossless so I guess its not. In which case I'm afraid that I have absolutely no interest in it whatsoever
Oh, they are also going to have enhanced iRadio stations with DJs... err one of the best things about Radio Paradise (one of the few internet radio stations I listen to) is the lack of inane comments from DJs
RE: Apple music streaming service - Damon - 02-Jun-2015
Interesting. We currently have Deezer, Spotify and Rdio. I'm going to drop Rdio as it's sound quality is poorer, and I don't need three streaming services. Qobuz is not available in Canada, BTW.
Given that the available music selection is very close between all three services (IME) I tend to go with the easiest user interface. For me, that means simple graphics, clear navigational cues and not too many inane suggestions to listen to Rhianna or Katie Perry.
But Radio Paradise is a good one; broad music selection, good sound quality and yes, no low-grade DJ blather. Few of the internet radio 'personalities' are as interesting as they themselves think they are. My opinion, of course.
RE: Apple music streaming service - Pim - 02-Jun-2015
There might not be a mention of high res but Apple has required the labels to supply them in 24/96 for years so technically they can. Not that it will be high res. It will just be the same recordings in a 24/96 bucket.
RE: Apple music streaming service - Confused - 02-Jun-2015
(02-Jun-2015, 23:09)Pim van Vliet Wrote: There might not be a mention of high res but Apple has required the labels to supply them in 24/96 for years so technically they can. Not that it will be high res. It will just be the same recordings in a 24/96 bucket.
As it stands, Apple won't even sell you anything in 16/44.1, let alone 24bit. A shame in my view.
RE: Apple music streaming service - Pim - 02-Jun-2015
There's been a lot written about this in the past. I think Chris Conacker from Computer Audiophile wrote he didn't think they would go high res because the mobile phone companies don't want them to. Imagine every teenager streaming their music over mobile networks. The bandwidth needed would be huge. I don't know if they could have a high res over land lines only streaming service.
RE: Apple music streaming service - Confused - 02-Jun-2015
(02-Jun-2015, 23:25)Pim van Vliet Wrote: There's been a lot written about this in the past. I think Chris Conacker from Computer Audiophile wrote he didn't think they would go high res because the mobile phone companies don't want them to. Imagine every teenager streaming their music over mobile networks. The bandwidth needed would be huge. I don't know if they could have a high res over land lines only streaming service.
But you could stream video all day on a mobile if you wanted to. Is 16/44 or higher really such a big deal these days?
RE: Apple music streaming service - AllenB - 03-Jun-2015
Very disappointing from Apple if this pans out. Catering to the masses, not us picky audiophiles. I really thought that Apple would go one better than Spotify and offer up lossless (at a higher subscription rate). I guess that they do not want an humungous backlog of complaints from all their iPhone users when bandwidth cannot cope from the service providers. Not their fault but it would reflect very badly on their product.
RE: Apple music streaming service - Eddye - 03-Jun-2015
(03-Jun-2015, 07:35)AllenB Wrote: Very disappointing from Apple if this pans out. Catering to the masses, not us picky audiophiles. I really thought that Apple would go one better than Spotify and offer up lossless (at a higher subscription rate). I guess that they do not want an humungous backlog of complaints from all their iPhone users when bandwidth cannot cope from the service providers. Not their fault but it would reflect very badly on their product.
Why would you expect Apple to offer something not used by the masses to which they cater? I think 99% of users couldn't care less wheter or not they're listening to a 24/192 or an MP3 track. Not to mention one wouldn't hear the difference anyway when you're traveling or in an office or working out. Music is for most people just wallpaper, nothing more. Apple is in the business of making a profit, so they'll save on storage and bandwith by using small files to maximize that profit.
RE: Apple music streaming service - GuillaumeB - 03-Jun-2015
(03-Jun-2015, 09:59)Eddye Wrote:(03-Jun-2015, 07:35)AllenB Wrote: Very disappointing from Apple if this pans out. Catering to the masses, not us picky audiophiles. I really thought that Apple would go one better than Spotify and offer up lossless (at a higher subscription rate). I guess that they do not want an humungous backlog of complaints from all their iPhone users when bandwidth cannot cope from the service providers. Not their fault but it would reflect very badly on their product.
Why would you expect Apple to offer something not used by the masses to which they cater? I think 99% of users couldn't care less wheter or not they're listening to a 24/192 or an MP3 track. Not to mention one wouldn't hear the difference anyway when you're traveling or in an office or working out. Music is for most people just wallpaper, nothing more. Apple is in the business of making a profit, so they'll save on storage and bandwith by using small files to maximize that profit.
Good post. Unfortunately I have to agree with you.
Guillaume
RE: Apple music streaming service - AllenB - 03-Jun-2015
(03-Jun-2015, 09:59)Eddye Wrote:(03-Jun-2015, 07:35)AllenB Wrote: Very disappointing from Apple if this pans out. Catering to the masses, not us picky audiophiles. I really thought that Apple would go one better than Spotify and offer up lossless (at a higher subscription rate). I guess that they do not want an humungous backlog of complaints from all their iPhone users when bandwidth cannot cope from the service providers. Not their fault but it would reflect very badly on their product.
Why would you expect Apple to offer something not used by the masses to which they cater? I think 99% of users couldn't care less wheter or not they're listening to a 24/192 or an MP3 track. Not to mention one wouldn't hear the difference anyway when you're traveling or in an office or working out. Music is for most people just wallpaper, nothing more. Apple is in the business of making a profit, so they'll save on storage and bandwith by using small files to maximize that profit.
Woah, easy tiger, it's not just my expectation. But maybe, just maybe, they might have wanted to offer something over and above Spotify, as an option, not necessarily as the default. Something to entice all those iTunes customers who used to pay for downloads from their store, but now prefer to pay a Spotify sub for lossy streaming. Not much to entice those lost customers back, if it's all on the same streaming rate and they are entrenched in Spotify. What about the youth of today that have moved up from ear-buds to Beats headphones and similar, apart from a fashion accessory, I am sure part of the appeal is better SQ. Apple / 'Beats' at lossless might have pushed that market even further.
All conjecture until we know for sure next week.
Now please get back in your cage!