Apple Streaming: Too little too late?

It's already there. I can stream any music from any source on my Muso. Why would Apple Music not work on Naim equipment unless Naim wanted to commit economic suicide? I don't actually have to go through Spotify Connect to play Spotify either, I just go into Spotify on my Mac, iPad or iPhone and link it to whatever output I want, which includes the Muso. 

You are correct the Mu-so has Airplay built in so Apple's new music service will work "natively". Most of Naim's other streamers do not have Airplay.  The only commonality is Spotify Connect.  I was just thinking out loud about adding Apple's "new" service in a manner similar to Spotify. The real goal would be to have Tidal or another lossless service. One can dream........

I re-read your post, and it sounds to me that you DO agree.  320 mp3 sounds like 256 aac.  Neither sound like redbook.

Or something else. 

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0...0.html#axzz3ciZMo1jy

Hal,thanks for the article link. It makes you wonder if Spotify will differentiate from Apple by providing lossless now. There is no mention of that however, just a few words about increased marketimg and advertising which doesn't sound very ambitious to me.

Read more at http://www.whathifi.com/news/a...#lGkLdH7Wlb4bA1f2.99 "

Yeah, reading through it again, I suppose I do.  I suppose what I did disagree with was: "320 MP3 does not seem (in others' opinion) to sound any better than 256 AAC (perhaps worse)."  That is the (perhaps worse) bit in the sentence.

Has anyone yet mentioned CONTENT.  Some of the comments above seem to indicate that the likes of Spotify etc allow you to stream any music you want.  NOT true, for example there are some pretty big holes in Spotify's content: The Beatles, King Crimson, Earthspan (String Band;s greatest album) and a few others.

So maybe Apple will provide better coverage.

Mind you I will still be very suspicious of Apple because I know at some point I am going to have to buy some expensive white box to make it all work!

+1 Spot on about content.  

Spotify has raised $526m in a funding round that values the lossmaking music streaming company at $8.5bn, days after Apple launched its own service ramping up the pressure on the Swedish business. 

The market leader in streaming also revealed new user numbers on Wednesday, saying that it had 20m paying customers, up from 15m in January, and a further 55m users who listen to a free advertising-supported version.

Spotify has raised more than $1bn since it was founded nine years ago, making it one of the best-funded start-ups in Europe. But it faces the prospect of a significant increase in competition as Apple, which 12 years ago revolutionised the music businesses with the launch of the iTunes download store, enters the subscription streaming market this month. Investors in the round included Nordic mobile operator Telia Sonera, British asset manager Baillie Gifford, and Canadian hedge fund Senvest Capital, according to a person close to the deal. Goldman Sachs, which Spotify hired to raise the funds, also contributed.

TeliaSonera said it had invested $115m for a 1.4 per cent stake in the company. The businesses announced they would work together to develop areas such as media distribution, data analytics and advertising.

Some observers said the move to raise more cash privately could further delay long-touted plans to launch an initial public offering for the world’s most popular music subscription service. 

Apple Music will be available on hundreds of millions of connected devices in 100 countries when iOS 8 is updated this month. But antitrust authorities in the US are investigating the company’s licensing negotiations with music labels over the new service.

The world’s most valuable company, with a cash pile approaching $200bn, is expected to spend significant amounts of money promoting its new music service. That is likely to put pressure on Spotify to increase its marketing budget. 

Jeremy Silver, a digital media consultant at Media Clarity, said raising a $500m “war chest” was vital for Spotify to compete with Apple’s vast scale.

“Spotify has first mover advantage but to maintain that position they’ll need to innovate much faster than they have in the past,” he said.

Financial statements filed in Luxembourg last month showed that Spotify’s revenues rose 44 per cent to just over €1bn in 2014. However, its operating losses widened to €165m as it invested in technology and marketing, while paying out the bulk of its revenues to rights holders.

In an attempt to fend off Apple and other rivals such as Google and Deezer, a French streaming service, Spotify plans to use the proceeds of the fundraising to invest in technology and media content, including adding videos and podcasts.

Spotify’s valuation has risen sharply since last year, when investors placed a $5bn figure on the company. At $8.5bn, Spotify is worth more than twice as much as Pandora, the US-listed internet radio service, which has also been consistently lossmaking.

Spotify declined to comment on the fundraising, but it published figures on Wednesday about its role in the global music industry. The company revealed it had paid more than $3bn in royalties to artists, songwriters and rights holders — including more than $300m in the first three months of 2015.

Another no from me, especially if they continue to treat music buyers with contempt by selling lossy music.  They are just a Spotify wanabe.

No, that's what my wife is for!  Two hours of Fish tonight she's chosen

Difficult to see why you bother with the streaming forum then. Unless you buy all of your music by cash then someone will be analysing your habits and trying to manipulate your next purchases. Regardless, a large percentage of postings across all Naim forums are to do with streaming these days and its ultimate impact in terms of content, quality, cost, comparibility with hardware and the best forms of reproduction.

This genie is well and truly out of its bottle. No matter the current (limited) resurgence in vinyl and others' predilection for CDs, streaming is the musical future and will digitally do for music what was done to 35mm film. It even caught Apple out, who hoped that we would continue to download their expensive offerings on a song by song or album by album basis. Their fallback 256 Kbps AAC position is not sustainable even medium term as the offerings already in the market place will force their hand. Buying a fashion statement like Beats will not be sufficient in any way.

Matters not. Unless Apple is minimum 44.1/16 not interested. Apparently not or it would have been front page news. GO DEEZER!

M

The future's so bright, I gotta wear (lo-res) shades.

John.

I actually find that the data-analysing services at Amazon pick things I might be interested in pretty well. Not anywhere near 100%, but enough "hits" for it to be useful. They get some extra sales as a result. I don't buy music from Apple so can't comment on their expertise directly, but I'd be surprised if their algorithms aren't also pretty sweet.

It is just some focused, rather than totally random suggestions...what's not to like?

Me too, but unfortunately a "random search"  and purchase made on the internet these days is all but a random interaction. Like it or not, you've got a virtual profile.

Am afraid that if you are a serious Naim owner then the taxman will strongly disagree with you..

To be fair to Spotify you don't have to use it in a way where it choses what you listen to, although that can be fun.

In Spotify I like to have long, long, long playlists and then play one of them in random mode.  So if I fancy a 60s bash then hit the 60s playlist.

I also like it because I have found stuff on it that I haven't heard for years.

The bad side of Spotify is the SQ, I find that I cannot play it is loud as a CD, mind you I can't play a CD as loud as a 24bit download.

+1. I like the flow feature within Deezer via iPad or iPhone. Historically on my iPod Classic I've ripped everything to 320. Never purchased music from iTunes except for one album as a test and it was several steps down from the CD version of the same. iTunes music IMHO is not a good value when one can obtain the 44.1/16 version for the same price locally or via Amazon many times for less. Makes no sense to me.

M

I've actually found an environment where I'm enjoying streaming -- in my car.  My new car includes a free Slacker subscription, and we have been trying out their 60's and 70's Rock stations, as well as artist-specific stations.  For rides in the car, we seem to enjoy the 'I wonder what's coming next' part of streaming.  And when it's a Kiss song, I can hit 'skip' ;-)

Maybe this will infect me and I'll want such streaming at home?  Clearly at home I'd only want lossless; decent quality lossy in the car is OK with me.

...or Cliff Richard

Too little, too late?  Anything too late?  I see nothing this offers over any other mainstream streaming service, aside from the term 'Apple' in the title, and presumably seamless integration into their products.  Quite disappointing, but pretty much what I expected.

It would be a mistake to underestimate the value of the seamless integration.  It's not sufficient in and of itself to guarantee success.  But if all else is (somewhat) equal, it will be a VERY valuable feature, I predict.