Ondrej Holzman New music service Apple Music, which launches on June 30, will stream songs at 256 kilobits per second, which is lower than the current standard of 320 kilobits per second. At the same time, Apple failed to contract all the artists it has in its iTunes catalog for streaming.
Lower bitrate, but maybe the same quality
At WWDC, Apple did not talk about the transmission speed, but it turned out that the bitrate of Apple Music will indeed be lower than that of competitors Spotify and Google Play Music, as well as Beats Music, which Apple Music will replace.
While Apple only offers 256 kbps, Spotify and Google Play Music stream 320 kbps, and Tidal, another competing service, even offers an even higher bitrate for an additional fee.
One of the reasons why Apple decided on 256 kbps may be the aim to ensure the lowest possible data consumption when you listen to music over the mobile internet. A higher bitrate naturally takes more data. But for iTunes users, this probably won't be too much of a problem, since 256 kbps is the standard for songs in iTunes.
The quality of the streamed music could be more influenced by the technology used, but Apple has not confirmed whether it will use AAC or MP3. Beats Music had MP3 streaming technology, but if AAC was used in Apple Music, even at a lower bitrate, the quality would be at least comparable to the competition.
[youtube id=”Y1zs0uHHoSw” width=”620″ height=”360″]
Streaming without the Beatles yet
When introducing the new music service, Apple also did not specify whether everyone will actually have the entire iTunes library available for streaming as it looks now. In the end, it turned out that not all performers had allowed their tracks to be streamed.
Although the user will have access to more than 30 million songs in Apple Music, it is not the complete iTunes catalog. Apple, like competing services, was unable to sign contracts with all publishers, so it will not be possible to stream, for example, the entire Beatles discography within Apple Music. This will only work if you buy their albums separately.
The Beatles are the most famous name that Apple failed to get on the streaming board, but the legendary Liverpool band is certainly not the only one. However, Eddy Cue and Jimmy Iovine are trying to negotiate the remaining contracts before the official launch of the service, so it is not yet clear who will be missing from Apple Music on June 30, just like the Beatles.
Apple has quite a rich history with the Beatles. Disputes regarding trademark infringement (the Beatles' record company is called Apple Records) were resolved for many years, until finally everything was settled in 2010 and Apple triumphantly introduced the complete Beatles on iTunes.
The 'Beetles', of which Steve Jobs was also a fan, became an instant hit on iTunes, which only confirms how significant it would be for Apple to be able to contract Beatles songs for streaming as well. This would give him a huge advantage against competitors like Spotify, because the Beatles cannot be streamed anywhere or bought digitally outside of iTunes.
Against Spotify, for example, Apple has the upper hand, for example, in the field of popular singers Taylor Swift. Some time ago, she had her songs removed from Spotify amid a great media uproar, because, according to her, the free version of this service devalued her work. Thanks to Taylor Swift, Apple will have the upper hand in this respect against its biggest competitor from Sweden.
"because, according to her, the free version of this service devalued her work".
:-))) It will probably be difficult to be Mrs. and Miss in one person. But we have already encountered dissatisfaction with the devaluing of creation in various digital forms among us, among our artists, so it is nothing new and exceptional.
At least Apple could have agreed with mobile operators that the data downloaded via Apple Music will not be included in the overall data downloaded.
That would be great, unfortunately our operators are stuck in 2005. At least the ones in the Czech Republic.
The consumption argument seems misguided to me. There is nothing easier in data settings for the user to select bitrate on 3G/4G. In the US and possibly elsewhere, the same iPhone is sold with "all you can eat" data. The problem will be a file on the side of the Apple server, which is probably afraid that its servers will not be able to handle it. Or is it marketing in order to triumphantly announce in a year that the bitrate is now higher.
I wouldn't look for such a science in it. 256 kbps AAC is a long-standing standard in iTunes, so it's probably based on that.
So the only thing AM would tempt me to do is not stream The Beatles. So nothing.