Apple unveils streaming service Apple Music and 24-hour radio stations | Technology | The Guardian
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2 ... dc-spotify

It sounds a much better prospect than Spotify for paying consumers. And it's no wonder artists were freaking out and signing up with Tidal - many thought Apple had too much power already!

Would you consider signing up? Or are you interested in the radio bit?

Free Spotify just about works for me personally at the moment.

Meh.

Then again, I've never used the free Nokia Music streaming service on my smartphone or Spotify or any of the others.

In general, it sounds like resurrecting iTunes Ping and mixing it with the Beats Music streaming.

For the few minutes every month I listen to music, no paid service is worth the money. I'll stick with local radio, at least the talk is relevant.

Not interested in the radio bit at all. I don't listen to music radio as it is - why would I let someone else pick what I listen to? Isn't the whole point of Spotify & etc. that you pick your own music from a vast available catalogue? Plus, Zane Lowe is a knob and it'll end up being incredibly US centric, you just know it.

Slightly interested in the 'social network' bit - I sometimes don't find out that someone I like has some new music out until well after they do, so some level of contact like that would be good.

Mildly interested in the streaming, although I don't pay for spotify as it stands.

So overall, I don't really think I'm their target market I'm afraid.

Apple Music is upsetting artists and indie labels | TechRadar
http://www.techradar.com/news/audio/app ... ls-1297194

Doesn't sound like a scam at all...

We'll give you stuff away for free and we won't pay you anything for it.

Sounds like a good deal to me.

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-33216778

They're not gonna avoid making a statement there. Though it's funny she only pulled the recent album...

Do we actually know for a fact that Apple won't be paying royalties for the 'free trial' period? Or is it just an assumption that because the company with $150 billion in the bank isn't asking any money for it, they can't be paying any money for it.

The contracts for the Indies have been slipped to the press through the back door. They have been complaining about it big time, it was big news on many IT sites about 2 weeks ago.

Edit: Taylor Swift has no joined the crowd speaking out against the polics:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/21 ... ple_music/

Apple will be paying out during the three-month trial period.

Mark

Now who would have thought the idea of the richest company in the world not paying for other people's work for 3 months would have caused an uproar. Bad move in the first part caused a [LIFTED] storm of bad PR.

Pot, meet kettle...
http://junction10.wordpress.com/2015/06 ... ow-stones/


Seems Ms Swift isn't so squeaky clean when it comes to artists' rights either.

It's a largely valid argument but let's not pretend this is anything other than one group of immoral corporate bastards trying to wring some money out o another group of immoral corporate bastards. Taylor Swift was just the public face because people would have had less sympathy if the person complaining had a job title of 'CEO'.

I mean, do you honestly think Taylor Swift (or more importantly the actually impoverished indies, because I'm fairly sure she doesn't need the money) are going to see very much of it?

Taylor Swift's Camp Responds to Photographer's Hypocrisy Claim - Hollywood Reporter - The Hollywood Reporter
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/t ... ers-804435