Apple Music coming June 30 for iPhone, iPad, Mac, and Windows

](/wwdc-2015)

Apple has announced Apple Music will arrive on June 30 with the arrival of iOS 8.4. It will cost $9.99 per month for an individual subscription, with a family subscription for up to six family members costing $14.99 per month. Customers will get the first three months of their subscription free. The service will launch in more than 100 countries.

A new version of iTunes for both Mac and Windows will launch later this month to support the service. Apple also announced support for Android, which will come at some point in the fall.

Be sure to stay tuned to our WWDC Keynote live blog for more.

Joseph Keller

Joseph Keller is the former Editor in Chief of iMore. An Apple user for almost 20 years, he spends his time learning the ins and outs of iOS and macOS, always finding ways of getting the most out of his iPhone, iPad, Apple Watch, and Mac.

137 Comments
  • Spotify must be bracing themselves for a swarm of cancellations. I assume offline playback will be possible for songs on Apple Music? I didn't hear it mentioned. Sent from the iMore App
  • I think that Apple definitely would have mentioned offline playback if it was a feature.
  • it is, i just checked on the website
  • Where on the website did you find about offline playback? Edit: Never mind, can be found here: https://www.apple.com/apple-music/#mn_p
  • I just saw this on Engadget: "What's more, "tens of millions" of iTunes songs will be available for streaming or saving for listening offline."
  • If you only get off-line playback when you subscribe, then how is this any different from what Spotify offers?
  • A few things. One, you get access to Apple's vast amount of music. Some artists are on iTunes but not on Spotify (i.e. Taylor Swift). Two, syncing music between Spotify on your desktop and Spotify on your device is currently very buggy (local files, specifically). Three, Apple is bae.
  • But that does not mean the entire iTunes library will be on the radio.
    Example is Taylor Swift. She is in Google play to buy but you can not stream her threw Google play all access. I willing to bet Taylor Swift will there to listen the apple radio either.
  • The impression I got is that everything on the iTunes Store is in the cloud and streamable. No limitations. Just $10 a month. This might even convince me to hop over from Spotify.
  • If you watch Google presentation from a few years ago you got the same impression that if it is play store it is streamable. Reality is some artist like for example Taylor Swift say no to that. So even if that is the impression Apple gave chances are it is far from reality. Chances are really good certain big name artist can tell Apple No. Apple has to take the lumps and deal with it.
  • Just remember that Apple is the only cell phone manufacturer that doesn't have to wait for the carriers to approve the updates. They could easily say if you want to sell in the #1 music store you have to let us stream to paying customers. The real test isn't Taylor Swift. She has everything except her latest on Beats already. The real test will be if you can stream the Beatles.
  • I just read on another site that the Beatles are a no-go for streaming.
  • Taylor Swifts back catalogue is available to stream through Music Key just not 1989. However most if 89 is on YouTube Music Key Posted via the iMore App for Android
  • Actually Taylor Swift is on Beats. Everything except her newest album which she holds back for a year before she releases it to streaming. Her issue is with free streaming.
  • I'd take serious issue with point 2 being a differentiator between Spotify and Apple. iTunes syncing content with the iPhone has been buggy for two years now and getting worse . The indefinite waiting to sync issue is sadly well known to many. Lesser known but even more painful is when you perform the crime of adding a new album, iTunes removes almost all your album art from music already on your iPhone. In recent months Apple have excelled themselves by pushing iTunes/iOS updates that aren't content with just removing album art, for some unlucky people, but remove all audio content. its sporadic and not affecting everyone but a very real problem - Can't imagine a way in which Spotify's syncing could be worse. I don't even understand point 3 - "Apple is bae" ????
  • If offline playback isn't offered, that's a deal buster. I don't have the bandwidth, or available wifi, to stream as my only option. At the gym and other non-wifi (or completely unreliable wifi) spots, I rely on my Spotify downloads. And I am so ready to ditch Spotify, because their Mac app stutters incessantly, a problem that is well-documented online but apparently disregarded by Spotify's tech staff.
  • You would think they would have mentioned this if it was a feature.
  • Offline playback will be available apparently. It's mentioned on Apple's website.
  • And I assume I can make a playlist of blended previously purchased music and streaming like on Spotify? The problem is with Spotify, it works sketchy at best. Many songs I own keep getting greyed out and won't play when I'm offline, even though they are mine and should be downloaded. This frustration is what has made me consider switching. But this presentation was not really all that informative.
  • Yeah, I thought the entire thing about Apple Music was horribly presented. I got almost nothing out of it at all.
  • Not necessarily. For many people free beats pay any day. Sent from the iMore App
  • Apple Music arriving to Windows and Android probably shows how Apple wants to be really aggressive at turning this music service into the main music service for everyone. The competition is going to be interesting to follow. I'm curious to see if Spotify users are willing to abandon year-long playlists for Apple Music.
  • The competition following? Lol. Apple's doing the following here, aside from the family plan, this looks exactly like Xbox Music's plan.
  • You didn't really read the comment did you. He said "the competition will be interesting to follow", as in it'll be interesting to see what the competition does next.
  • Wow. he did not say the competition is following. He said it will be interesting to follow what the competition is going to do.
  • Like the other guys have stated, I mean it's going to be interesting to see how the competition unfolds between Apple and all the others going forward. :) Personally I'm curious to see if people are going to ditch Spotify here in Scandinavia, as I belive that's going to be a tough change for many. Including me.
  • Yeah, they finally figured out that limiting it to Apple only products kills them when the competors do not care what you are on. Google Play All access works on all devices. Honestly I know I will not touch Apple system as 1. Google offers me more for less. I pay 7.99 a month for access to everything in the play store for music. Add free music videos on you tube and it works on all my devices.
  • I think "finally" is the wrong word to use as this is their first new take on the music player since iTunes.
  • If it's like Beats then someone will create a 3rd party importer. I used a web based one and moved my Spotify playlist to Beats.
  • If you are a Beats subscriber, that will be transferred into Apple Music From apple.com/music/membership What happens to my Beats Music service?
    Once Apple Music launches on June 30, you can easily move your current Beats Music subscription over to Apple Music. Just open Beats Music on your iOS device and you’ll be prompted to join Apple Music. Once you’ve signed up, the playlists you’ve created or subscribed to and the albums you’ve saved in your Beats Music library will all be available to you in Apple Music.
  • It seems that Apple is also expanding it's user base by releasing Apple Music for Windows and Android. Let's see how far it will go...
  • revolutionary! LOL! They just invented SiriusXM radio where they didn't just copy spotify. Not interested in listening to the shit they'll pump out anyway. Plenty of Apple drones will though. Mindless little Apple-sheep will join just because it's Apple.
  • That was most likely a throwback to Steve Jobs.
  • It seems like this comment offers no value other than to insult others.
  • I see you have nothing constructive to provide to the conversation cc3d and live within the confines of the "Apple is a religion" trope. Good for you!
  • Who said anything about Revolutionary?
  • Atleast they did not spend 2.5 hours watching a keynote of a company they hated, live and immediately jump into forums to post mean comments. Apple controls the life of Apple Haters as much as (or even more than) it enhances the life of its users. Research suggests that it really sucks to be a hater who posts nasty comments on the internet. These people needs to get professional help immediately and straighten their lives before Apple controls them even more.
  • Wow, I could say same thing about apple fanboy and google IO. Reality is most people can get everything from just the head lines. Top it off it is sad to watch apple fans scream how great apple is when a lot of it is not new.
  • Greatness and newness are mutually independent characteristics. At least to most reasonably unbiased and intelligent people.
  • On the nose with that comment... You aren't responding to intelligent people.
    Fact is, anyone who spends time going to specific websites just to bash what they don't use is deranged and not only has no life but has mental issues. This is true regardless of whether it's Apple vs Google or Google vs Apple. These are companies that make products and these degenerates aren't being paid by them (or maybe they are paid shills?) so it's incredible how some people have such a bankrupt life they need to turn their choice of gadget platform into a religion.
    Personally, I only defend Apple against these idiots, I never waste time on Android centric sites to post mean comments.
  • I am often reminded of this scene from Howard Stern's Private Parts when the haters start posting... Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes a day. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
    Pig Vomit: How could this be?
    Researcher: Answer most commonly given: "I want to see what he'll say next."
    Pig Vomit: All right, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
    Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.
    Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?
    Researcher: Most common answer: "I want to see what he'll say next."
  • why are you even on this site get a life Sent from the iMore App
  • "I'm curious to see if Spotify users are willing to abandon year-long playlists for Apple Music." I think a lot is going to depend on whether or not users can download music from Apple Music and save it for local playback on their phones. I'm not sure how much traction it'll get if it's simply a streaming service.
  • I believe that will be available. During the keynote demonstration of the new music app I saw an option to only show offline available music.
  • yes i am, but i was wondering what will happen to itunes match
  • from Apple website: " How does Apple Music know what songs are in my personal library? With an Apple Music membership, your entire library lives in iCloud. We compare every track in your collection to the Apple Music library to see if we have a copy. If we do, you can automatically listen to it straight from the cloud. If you have music that’s not in our catalog, we upload those songs from iTunes on your Mac or PC. It’s all in iCloud, so it won’t take up any space on your devices. Does Apple Music work with iTunes Match?
    Yes. Apple Music and iTunes Match are independent but complementary."
  • I saw the same thing on Apple Website... and i'm confused....
    If Apple Music compare your music and move it to the iCloud... what'S the point of iTunes Match who's doing the same thing ??? And Why Apple answered Apple Music and iTunes Match are independent but complementary ???? I dont see why having iTunes Match if i'm paying for Apple Music....
  • exactly my thoughts! no idea what "separate but complimentary" is supposed to mean if one already does what the other offers. To me it sounds like if you don't want Apple Music but want your music in the cloud, do Match otherwise Apple Music does that plus gives you access to the entire Apple collection. So for me I am thinking cancel Match and just go with Apple Music.
  • Yeah...I'm not quite sure I get it either. I think there are free areas within Apple Music. Radio maybe? If that's the case, someone might use Match to upload their own music to supplement the passive listening feature of Beats1 Radio and skip signing up for Apple Music. Doesn't seem like a great way to reach 100 million Music users. Keeping them separate seems to be how Apple will make a tiny something from the people who prefer buying vs on-demand streaming, but still get them using Apple Music in some way.
  • I have a feeling iTunes Match will get specifically mentioned in the Fall iPhone announcement. It isn't coincidence that the Apple Music trial is 3 months, so through 9/30 for those who sign up day one. I think they will offer iTunes Match still for those that don't subscribe to Apple Music. My question is this. If I DO subscribe to Apple Music, will my uploaded songs count against my iCloud Drive cap? Currently I am an iTunes Match subscriber, and only have a small number (10%) of my tracks that aren't purchased or matched. Still, this is 1,300 songs, and about 6 GB, but I would rather they not use space I can use for iMovie Theater or iCloud Photo Library. Most of these 1,300 are tracks by artists not yet on iTunes (such as Def Leppard, who isn't on any service, and Big Country, which have a ton of albums that I got as imports). So these songs will not be on iTunes any time soon, if ever. Though I predict, based on the timing, that iCloud Drive prices will drop if uploaded music is going to count against the iCloud Drive.
  • It says on Apple's website: "Add Apple Music content to your library". I'm wondering if you can do that and then quit and keep that added content. There is no mention of that either way.
  • the content added to your library will stop playing if you let your subscription run out.
  • My only question is what does Apple's new Music app look like for those of us that aren't interested in the streaming part or the social media part? These people must actually be the majority of their users today, and possibly for the foreseeable future. I found it very disappointing that they didn't demo anything to do with that or how you would manage your music if you just don't want any of that stuff.
  • I don't see how those people would remain the majority for long if they are even a majority now. The music industry is moving towards streaming services. Why continue to purchase individual albums in iTunes if you can pay a subscription cost and have all the music at your finger tips?
  • Because the sub costs $120 per year. If someone is only going to buy a few albums per year, on-demand streaming is a bad way to spend money. Even more so if that person already had a large music collection that satisfies their music needs. They'll age out of the music audience eventually, but not for several decades.
  • Here in Scandinavia streaming has been the norm for many years now. I'm actually a bit puzzled why there's still an option around where you buy songs individually. Why would you want that? When there's a party and you have a primary device playing all the music, how would you let your guests request their favourite songs when you haven't bought those songs yet? With Spotify that's no issue, because you can just search for any song in all of Spotify's library. Just curious.
  • because streaming services cater to the mainstream music but most lack things like quality underground hip-hop. And lots of people still buy music, lack ability to stream because of bandwith costs on their plan, lack the ability to stream because they are in areas without consistent cell signals. Where i live there are many many places where you drop signal and that's not including when you get deep inside stores or buildings. There are also people who simply don't enjoy listening to a radio style, randomized player like a pandora. I know several people that own all their music and have a large library. I have no need to pay $10 a month to stream what i already own.
  • Is Pandora random only? I have never used anything but Spotify myself, where you search for the songs you'd like to listen to. You can also download them if you want. Doesn't Pandora have those options?
  • Last i checked it was but i admit i don't use these services and it's been a long time since i've used pandora. So it could have changed. Pandora is similar to xm or sirius. Pandora pays for a blanket license and you (the customer) can listen to music but you don't get to choose individual tracks. Maybe there's a higher pay tier were you do but i don't know. Itunes radio is currently just like that too. This was cheaper entry point for Apple and originally less risk if it didn't work. Spotify and Beats By Dre are "untethered services." Spotify has to specifically negotiate with record companies & artists that hold the different copyrights. And because they do that their customers can pick specific songs exactly when they want them. This is more expensive than what xm or pandora do. It's also why most of these untethered services don't have many free versions of their service.
  • In my case it's because I like specific new music. Music that generally isn't on the streaming stations. Secondly, I like to buy in album format because I think the groups deserve more respect as artists than they get from the single-song buying crowd and because any group that can't write an entire album is undeserving of the name "musicians" IMO. Third, and finally ... I only buy an album or so every couple of months, and even though this is much more than most of my friends buy, even the $10 price of Apple Music would have me paying *more* than just buying the albums that I think are worth it, as they come out. Only Apple can get people to buy essentially "radio" for $120 a year as a *subscription,* and love it so much that they thank them for the privilege of purchasing it.
  • Thanks for the reply. As I mention in the post above, Spotify works just like iTunes with the addition of being able to stream the songs if you prefer. You aren't locked to a radio show. You search up and play any song you'd like in any order. And you buy and download songs individually instead of streaming if you prefer. So in that regard, iTunes is a step behind because it lacks the streaming part. Apple Music solves this, and the question now more than ever becomes "who has the better music library?". I listen to Armin van Buuren's ASOT every week on Spotify, which sadly isn't in iTunes (yet). Maybe Apple Music will solve that too in time. I don't know how iTunes Match works, but if you can't search and select songs yourself it just seems bad. I don't understand why anyone would want that.
  • yeah agree. the actual player app is more important to me. I have a large library and use it a lot. The recent changes have made it less usable not more. Like adding album art to actual lists just means it takes much longer if you're scrolling. placing every album on a single page instead of individual pages is kinda weird. I'd rather just go to a single album. So i'm much more interested in the app and using it to play my own content because i don't have a need to stream and i have way more content than i can get to right now to listen to. Knowing apple in the wake of steve job's passing the app will go the way of more clutter and i'll eventually have to find something else. Honestly, it's made me want to learn to code and make an ios app that's geared towards users like me. It'd be similar but with a bit more customization, and options like being able to not show art in long lists, or to remove buttons that i don't ever use like "shuffle", etc.
  • If I pay for iTunes Match do I get Apple Music?
  • What a stupid question.. iTunes Match is what - $24? And you expect what a year of Apple music where the single month is $10?
  • The reverse question is actually interesting though... Will the Apple music service include iTunes match? (i mean for non-iTunes content of course) Okay never mind (from Apple);
    How does Apple Music know what songs are in my personal library?
    With an Apple Music membership, your entire library lives in iCloud. We compare every track in your collection to the Apple Music library to see if we have a copy. If we do, you can automatically listen to it straight from the cloud. If you have music that’s not in our catalog, we upload those songs from iTunes on your Mac or PC. It’s all in iCloud, so it won’t take up any space on your devices.
  • Good point I wasn't thinking year vs. month. So the better question would be does Apple Music replace iTunes match? From what LeFrancoy states below, it would.
  • I would guess no. I don't use either but it my guess as to what i'm reading is it would work similar to the following: Itunes Match: would match music you've bought from itunes and steam it on your phone and also allow you to upload a certain number of gbs of your own non-itunes purchased content to itunes in order to stream back to your phone, Apple Music: would simply be a monthly service that allows you to stream any song from Apple's itunes catalogue even if you didn't buy it at all. It also seems to offer offline playback so you can download any of those songs to your phone and play them offline. I'm guessing you'll never be able to transfer them off that phone though sort of like some audiobook downloads. Also like Beats app it curates music and makes suggestions based on you're listening patterns and what you enter as interests. Bottomline they seem like two different services. Itunes match seems for music you've purchased at itunes or elsewhere. Apple music is a on demand (as in not like pandora) streaming service where you're paying more but you're not limited to streaming what you've already bought. So if, like me you have a huge library, but have no interest in streaming, you'd want itunes match. If you don't own any music but want to steam a song on demand then you'd want apple music because obviously you wouldn't own any music that needed matching. And if you are in between, I'd guess you'd have to way the cost. I'm sure there are some people that want both. Maybe there is a bundle. Maybe it's itunes match is bundled and included with Apple music. But with Apple music you're clearly paying extra for the ability to pick an individual song in the apple library on demand and play it on of offline and my understanding of itunes match, a file matching service, is you can't do that in itunes match. Not sure if my understanding is true but that's what i'm getting.
  • Is this separate from iTunes Match? How will that work?
  • So, they're going to move everyone whose signed up to Beats Music over to Apple Music eventually? Sent from the iMore App
  • My question as well. I didn't see the live stream, so was it addressed? I'm currently subscribed to Beats.
  • Once Apple Music launches on June 30, you can easily move your current Beats Music subscription over to Apple Music. Just open Beats Music on your iOS device and you’ll be prompted to join Apple Music. Once you’ve signed up, the playlists you’ve created or subscribed to and the albums you’ve saved in your Beats Music library will all be available to you in Apple Music. Sent from the iMore App
  • What about high resolution audio? I'm not in for streaming, I want to buy my own music.. But I want it in high resolution!
  • What happens to iTunes Radio in all of this? It was ad free for iTunes Match subscribers. Are they nixing that and putting all streaming under the new subscription service?
  • I'm wondering the exact same thing Sent from the iMore App
  • I'm waiting to find out too. I assume there is no reason to immediately kill iTunes Radio. There is a big licensing difference from limited selection algorithm radio vs unlimited access to absolutely everything at any time in any order. And price difference. $2/m vs $10/m. We'll see.
  • No thanks. I'll be keeping Spotify. Sent from the iMore App
  • It's free for three months and Spotify Premium is non-binding.
  • Does anyone know if I get this and save a lot of songs will it take a lot of my GB from my phone away cuz I'm Spotify I have 500 songs saved and it doesn't take up a lot of memory. Will Apple music take up a lot of space? Please help!! Sent from the iMore App
  • I'm pretty sure it will download all 37 million songs onto your phone.
  • I'll stick to Soundcloud for my streaming and continue buying full albums from label sites, Bandcamp, Bleep, Juno, etc.
  • I don't get why they would bring support for android. Wouldn't they want to have it as an ios exclusive to entice people over or have ios only features for this purpose? I'm just curious
  • Because each platform has it's own "Apple Music" equivalent and in and of itself, is not a strong enough selling point to entice users to switch platforms. This opens up the opportunity for Apple to reap the benefits of subscriptions coming from Android users.
  • It's all about the mighty $.......
    Android owners $ just as good as ios users
  • People jump platforms enough that they will want a platform-agnostic service, and might stick with Spotify otherwise. (I'm one of those.) Although I figured Beats Music was that, really. We'll see.
  • If Apple isn't on all platforms and their competition is, people will choose the service that is cross-platform. Apple just ends up emboldening their main competitors. It enables Spotify's investors to continue deluding themselves into thinking Spotify is the Netflix for music and keep funding them without results. That dream is likely gone. They also want as wide an audience as possible so they can be the place that breaks new artists (vs cross-platform YouTube) and maximize the social features (vs cross-platform Twitter and FB). But I don't see Apple doing this for many other apps. Maybe TV/Movies.
  • One, because these subscription services are far from huge money makers. You need lots of users. The service is supported by subscription fees so i'm guessing the thinking is we want people paying apple a subscription fee that way we win even if they are on a different brand of phone. The same way they launched the itunes on windows because with a store they wanted to sell to more people than just apple iphone owners.
  • Simple, really. Beats is already on Android. They aren't going to just say, "OK, come June 30, switch to an iPhone if you want to continued using Beats. Otherwise, see ya!" and not only give their competition more subscribers, but piss off potential future iPhone buyers. This is their foot in the door. This and the migrate to iOS app. Though this, specifically, allows an android user to get a taste of Apple/iOS, perhaps creating a future small halo effect.
  • As was stated, Apple Music is an artist-centric service, and as such, being able to reach the largest possible audience makes more sense.
  • google music would have kept me if they offered a family discount! i loved their offering even with it's shortcomings but the lack of family plan was eventually a deal breaker. switched to spotify and soon will switch over to apple music.
  • Spotify has already said they're going to match Apple's pricing. I imagine Google will do the same thing.
  • That would be cool - for the family plan.
  • I still prefer Amazon's business model: buy the CD and get the mp3 download free. If all CDs had been sold with the free download, I think more people would still be buying CDs. Posted via the iMore App for Android
  • I ripped all my CDs years ago and gave them away.
  • Think I’ll cancel my iTunes Match account ($2.08/mo.) and replace it with Apple Music
    ($9.99/mo. ad-free). The entire iTunes music library with offline listening + discovery
    and live radio.
  • Paying $120/year for something you can get for free? Thanks, but no thanks. The price of these services fuels piracy, IMO. It will always be an issue as long as the prices are so high that people have to give 5 thoughts to it, since it's such an obvious and easily "alternative." $9.99 is too much, IMHO, and while the family plan is a much better bargain provided you have 2+ people to share the benefits, the requirement to connect all the devices via Family Sharing is a showstopper for me. Not every family is the Brady Bunch.
  • You have to be the Brady Bunch to afford $10 a month? Fuels piracy? The price is lower than most albums. So for less than the price of one album a month you get access to over 30 million songs and your music library available in the cloud. If you don't want to pay that price you just don't want to pay for music period. I agree with the Family Sharing being necessary for the family discount being horseshit though.
  • Cant really argue with that, now can you? Even if it were 5 bucks a month you'd still be complaining because 60 bucks a year is still more expensive than free, and it would 'fuel piracy'. For people like that the 'legal' ship sailed off a long time ago. I know it's a bit off topic and doesnt apply to multi-millionaire artists, but it's funny to see how everyone wants decent wages and make a decent living when the same people demand that most of the things they buy be at a lower price than the cheapest possible price. Well, except for the 128gb iPhone 6/6+ for which people are ready to get locked on a 50$, 2-year contract. After all you gotta store all those 'alternative downloads' of yours. Apple still wins, btw.
  • Wish I could vote you up more than once for this... "I know it's a bit off topic and doesnt apply to multi-millionaire artists, but it's funny to see how everyone wants decent wages and make a decent living when the same people demand that most of the things they buy be at a lower price than the cheapest possible price."
  • I think a big reason why this argument falls on deaf ears is that when people hear "artists" they immediately think "Beyonce" and other wealthy and successful stars who don't engender much sympathy. Then there is the fact that no matter how much consumers pay for music, the record labels always take the lion's share, leaving artists with leftovers and song writers with virtually nothing. Until and unless a more equitable system is established, most people will be quite disinterested in paying a premium for music.
  • "Until and unless a more equitable system is established, most people will be quite disinterested in paying a premium for music." I don't think "most people" care one way or another if the "artists" are getting paid a fair share. They just want to to be cheap enough to be acceptable for their needs.
  • Yeah, I wondered if this would negate the need for iTunes Match or not. It seems like it would but I'll wonder until I see for sure on June 30th.
  • The potential catch is that if your personal music library contains anything that is not currently in iTunes or which may be removed at a later time. You're probably safe with top 40, but not so much if you have any DJ sets or live recordings.
  • What resolution will Apple Music be at? CD quality or lossy quality? Nowhere does it mention resolution as far as I can tell.
  • I hope it's at least 256 AAC.
  • At $9.99/mo (i.e. $120/year), I just cannot justify this. Has to be cheaper, considering anyone who wants to get all the music they want, for free, can get it with about as much effort as it takes to sign up for this service anyways (minus the costs).
  • My primary hope going into the announcement was that Family Sharing would be included. I wish it could have been done at the $9.99 price point, but I will still be making the move from Google Music All Access to the $14.99 family Apple Music plan. Another reason I have been enrolled with Google Music was because it was multi-platform. With Apple Music now working on Android I am willing to take the plunge without fear of loosing a music collection if I ever decide to make a platform change. Sent from the iMore App
  • On the Apple US site the monthly memberships of US$9.99 and US$14.99 are mentioned, but when I switch to the same page on the Apple UK site the cost in GBP is missing. I guess they will update that soon.
  • I would be shocked and dismayed if this included The Beatles catalog.
  • They did say everything in iTunes. They didn't say everything in Beats.
  • Everything - almost... Beatles not included... :)
  • If the Music app does not preserve the curated playlist user experience in Beats Music, this new service will be a non-starter for many. There's a huge difference between "radio stations" and curated playlists that allow you to freely fast forward, rewind, and skip backward/forward as often as you want. Disguising radio stations as playlists isn't going to fool anyone, especially when you're charging $10 a month.
  • And now this article explains everything: Apple Wants to Be the Streaming Music Service for Dads
    http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/06/apple-streaming-mu...
  • Yes all your Beats playlists transfer over. It says so on the Beats website.
  • lvthunder I'm not talking about transferring saved playlists from Beats. I'm referring to Beats Music's curators and their associated playlists, which are a great way to discover new music, and a far superior alternative to iTunes Radio-style playlists programmed by record company algorithms. In Beats, you can browse through a list of curators, each specializing in a specific genre or sub-genre of music. Each curator regularly publishes a new playlist, and you can see and play any of the playlists that curator has ever created. These playlists work exactly like those you create yourself, allowing you to freely play, fast forward, rewind, and skip with no limitations. My concern is that Apple will kill this feature, eliminating the rich selection of human curated playlists and that whatever substitute they offer will be in a radio format, which gives the user no visibility into what songs are in a playlist and strictly limits skipping, ff/rw, etc. This to me would be a deal breaker. I wouldn't use such a service for free, let alone for $10 a month.
  • From https://www.apple.com/apple-music/#mn_p Every genre comes with its own team of experts. It’s the guy who’s at every psychobilly show. The girl who nerds out over the progression of punk. The people who have made a love of music their life’s work. Every song our experts suggest is the result of the countless hours spent listening for just the right sound and discovering the connections between artists, songs, and scenes. Because when we put that new chillwave playlist together, we want it to be exactly what you were looking for. Without your even knowing it. Great playlists from major players. We also recommend playlists for you from some of the most respected, knowledgeable, and forward-thinking magazines, websites, and tastemakers in music and culture. Hear an indie mix, a classic rock compilation, or a hip–hop set from the sources who obsess about music. Then a bunch of logos of music magazines. Fresh cuts. Served up by our pros. Not all music is created equal. Apple Music experts are out scouring every corner of the music world to bring our members the stuff worth listening to. It’s not just any up‑and‑coming band. It’s the one that’s about to go big. It’s not just the latest video to drop. It’s an alternate cut that you simply have to watch. And it’s more than just top charts. It’s popular music and videos from genres you care about. This is the music that matters. We made you a mix. When our music editors put together a playlist, they do more than find similar songs in a genre. Every mix — and every track within it — is carefully considered. And each song builds on the one before it. The result is that each playlist has the power to tell a story, capture the mood, or even change it.
  • This speaks to curation but not to the playback experience. I am not into passive music listening. I like to see a list of everything in a playlist, and I like to be able to ff/rw/skip any time I like. I hope I'm wrong, but so far everything I've seen points to Apple replacing Beats' curated playlists with radio stations. This would be a slap in the face of every Beats Music subscriber.
  • They call it a playlist. When they are talking about Radio they call it radio. When I saw the UI on stage I said oh there is all the Beats stuff. It'll be the same. On the chart on this page https://www.apple.com/apple-music/#mn_p It says Radio with a check mark for both AppleID and subscriber. Then under that it says "Get expert music recommendations" (which I take to be the playlists like in Beats) as subscriber only.
  • The term 'playlist' can have more than one definition. In this context it may just mean a list of songs that are played on a given radio station. Again, everything I've seen that falls into the category of 'radio' hides the playlist from the user and restricts their ability to navigate back and forth within a song or across different songs. There is nothing on the page to which you linked nor anywhere in the WWDC presentations that suggests otherwise. Another issue is the question of whether iTunes' music library has the same selection of music as Beats.
  • OK Chicken Little. I'll believe that playlist means playlist and you'll believe playlist means radio station and we'll see who is right in three weeks.
  • I hope you're right. After the Aperture fiasco, I'm no longer inclined to give Apple the benefit of the doubt when it comes to killing great products to further a business model.
  • So far, the only thing I've heard from Apple that suggests a substitute for Beats' curators is "Beats 1" which is essentially a radio station. A radio station is not even remotely a suitable alternative to a library of curated playlists.
  • No Sonos support is a deal breaker for me. Sent from the iMore App
  • Same here. I am intrigued by the service and don't mind paying but they have to support Sonos to get my money. Sent from the iMore App
  • Same here. No Sonos support, no subscription for me. I listen to Spotify constantly on Sonos!
  • Sonos said that it's up to Apple to implement Sonos's API (cough, cough, pay the licensing fees, cough, cough). So it's only a matter of time before it comes to Sonos (let's hope, not in an infinite time scale;)
  • What's the advantage of a Sonos system over using Apple TV and/or Airport Express to play music on remote speakers?
  • I'm the wrong person to ask, I recently moved away from sonos (a sound bar and a speaker) in favour of bluetooth receivers/speakers... But to me the most enticing aspect is the multi-room/speaker capabilities. The timing (sound-wise) is perfect, because of their proprietary technology. There are other reasons of course (services. But like any audio setup, it's pretty much up to wether you like the sound coming out of it or not.
  • The advantage is, I already own Sonos and am not gong to put my system in a closet just because Apple Music. Since literally every other streaming service offers Sonos support, I'll stick with one of them. Sent from the iMore App
  • So after June 30th, will it still be possible to purchase individual songs or albums if I choose not to subscribe to the streaming service? As it currently stands for me, I'm not purchasing one album a month or 8 songs a month to make spending $9.99 a month viable option for the streaming service.
  • I'm sure you will. Why would Apple give that up?
  • Bye bye Spotify for this cat... Sent from the iMore App
  • Who wants to adopt me into their "family"?
  • If both consumers and artists are grumbling about $10/mo, then the price is close to where it needs to be, it just needs bigger scale. Apple Music should do very well. It doesn't have to be a market leader, it just needs to bring iTunes to the future and provide competition. It has to serve artists and consumers equally, and $10/mo seems to be the bottom price to achieve that. Why? Because after nine years Spotify still aren't profitable, and now must lower fees to match Apple's. Spotify have 15mil paying subscribers in 58 markets, for a loss. Apple Music pre-installed on about 1bil devices and available for billions more in 100 markets, then Spotify's 15mil Premium subs looks like a rather low bar.
  • It doesn't have to be the market leader? I think Apple wants to own the music market.
  • Minor niggle about your numbers @David Hroncheck, you will need iOS 8.4 to have AppleMusic "pre-installed", so that won't be 1 billion (ball-park would be around 300-400 mil. in 2-3 months). But of course every new iOS device sold going forward will have it, so it's a sweet position to be in (and one that only Apple can leverage). What I wander about, is if Apple is going to be agressive with Apple Music on iTunes (Mac+PC) or not. Because there is a pretty big market there that Apple already has the lion's share...
  • I haven't seen anything about a web version. I read today that it will be available on the web, but I haven't seen it mentioned in other articles or Apple's website... I use Google Play Music now and it's great because it's available in a web app so I can listen at work. I'm not sure if this'll be worth it without a web app ... and I really want it to so I can move away from google services. Sent from the iMore App
  • Anybody know if there will be the option of collaborative playlists like on Spotify? I really like being able to make them with friends for upcoming events and parties. Kind of like a group chat but for tunes. I think that will be the dealbreaker for me.