Although Apple Music hasn’t even debuted yet, it’s already received plenty of publicity. In an example of good intentions possibly going bad, that publicity appears to be the result of the promised three-month free trial. As the term implies, it means you’ll have a reasonable amount of time to sample the service before you decide if it’s really worth $9.99 per month, or $14.99 for up to six users.

But in the goal of doing something that ought to have a positive impact, Apple apparently failed to consider the rights of the artists who create, produce and perform that music. So while over 70% of the revenue from Apple Music will be distributed to the music companies and, one hopes, to the composers and artists, the original plan called for no payment to be made during the free-trial periods.

Now from an accounting point of view, I suppose that this position made sense. Apple was giving up money to entice more people to subscribe to the service, thus improving the opportunity for artists to earn money. So, therefore, the artists ought to consider the reality of the situation and take a long view. Yes, I’m speculating here, but that’s how it seems to be.

Continue Reading…

All right, so Apple Music doesn’t debut until June 30, but already there are loads of perceptions about the service, and certainly music quality is an important issue. What we do know is that it’ll be very much based on Beats Music intermixed with Apple’s own unique bag of tricks. How it fares against such market leaders as Spotify won’t be known for a while, but it’s a sure thing Apple is working with a huge advantage, some 800 million credit cards registered with iTunes, and a three-month free trial.

No doubt, Apple will be pushing hard for you to take the trial subscription, expecting that many of you will keep it going, since $9.99 (or $14.99 for a family of six) isn’t such a huge investment for access to most of a music library with 30 million tracks. I suppose if you’re used to buying music, you might have suspicions. It’s not that Apple will go out of business tomorrow, but wouldn’t you like to know that your music is still available if you decide to ditch the account, or you miss a payment?

Typical of Apple’s critics, they can come up with some pretty outlandish stuff to argue about, so there was a report from a CNN blogger the other day claiming that Apple would be delivering music with poorer quality audio with Apple Music. How so? Well, it seems that Beats Music streams 320K MP3 tracks, whereas Apple offers 256K AAC. Without actually thinking any further, the CNN blogger subtracts 256 from 320, sees a gap and pronounces the audio quality inferior. Now it so happens that AAC (short for Advanced Audio Coding) is a higher efficiency codec. So the smaller audio files from Apple should deliver identical sound quality.

The claim has also been made that iTunes music ought to sound pretty close to a CD. Under most listening conditions, it doesn’t appear there’s much, or any, audible difference. Such tests can be quite subjective, and some of you will no doubt claim to reliably hear those differences, and suggest they are anything but subtle. On the other hand, double-blind listening tests don’t appear to reveal anything that noticeable. That even appears to be true when you compare so-called “lossless” files with 256K AAC.

To be sure, the question of the quality of different audio codecs is constantly being debated, and each seems to have their adherents. It’s even true that some believe that AAC is Apple’s proprietary protocol, because they mistakenly assume the first “A” stands for “Apple” rather than “Advanced.” It happens to be an industry standard. But it’s not the potential, but how well the audio conversion is done. In addition, Apple claims to use higher resolution digital masters for many of its recordings, which also has the potential to improve sound quality. Well, at least it sounds promising, even although the audible improvements may not always be obvious.

In case you’re wondering, Spotify, the current number one streaming music service with 20 million paid subscribers, according to their recent announcement, offers 320K Ogg Vorbis files for the premium service. Again, there will be debates over what sounds best and what is lacking. I suspect the major audio codecs all work well enough for most listeners, and the sort of listening tests that would pass scientific muster are probably not at all worth struggling with.

Besides, I suspect most of you listen to music on fairly modest equipment, such as an iPhone with one of Apple’s ear buds. So it won’t matter which audio codec is used, and lower bit rates would still be satisfactory. It would probably take a pretty decent audio system to reveal genuine, not imaginary, differences, but that assumes they really exist.

Now when it comes to imaginary, consider the PonoPlayer that classic rocker Neal Young has been touting for a while. The unit sells for $400, and the manufacturer sales a repertoire of higher resolution audio files that clock in at 96 kHz/24-bit, three times larger than CD quality, 44.1 kHz/16-bit. Three times better? No way. The resolution of a CD is beyond what you can hear, unless you’re that person who flies around the skies with tights and a cape. Practically speaking, there may be some value in using those huge audio files for mastering purposes, but it’s not at all clear that the customer will hear an audible difference.

But it will seem as if you do hear differences, particularly if you know which file you’re listening to. If you didn’t know, you might not detect the difference that seemed clear as day, or even care, but I suppose the higher numbers seem impressive enough that some people will buy a PonoPlayer, even though not all of the songs sold at the company’s site are high-res. I’m not even getting into the question of whether the original master recordings are also high-res, or whether only the copy was made at the higher sampling frequency and bit rates.

Besides, it’s not as if any aging rock and roller, whose ears have been assaulted by decades on the road listening to musicians at full blast, will hear any difference. But maybe Young is doing it on faith, or the promise of a huge paycheck. I wouldn’t presume to guess.

From the time that Michael Dell first claimed that Apple should shut down the company and return the money to investors, the critics have been claiming our favorite fruit company ought to be dead and buried. Or it will be shortly. Even when sales and profits hit record levels, it wasn’t taken seriously by some. It must be a fluke. Reality will take over someday soon. Just you wait!

After the WWDC events in 2014 and 2015, some members of the tech media pronounced them failures. Last year, it was the result of not having any new hardware to announce. Said pundits failed to understand the meaning of the letter “D” in that acronym, which obviously stands for “developers.”

And, yes, I realize Apple has sometimes used a WWDC to announce hardware that’s usually focused towards professionals, such as the 2013 launch of a redesigned Mac Pro. But still!

This year, the complaint was about the perceived lack of substantive new features for OS X El Capitan and iOS 9. It was more of a refinement of last year’s edition. Worse, some members of the media reminded us of features “borrowed” from other platforms, particularly Split View, or Proactive Siri, while ignoring the fact that such influences go both ways. Besides, the number of new features on these two operating systems might still be more than you’ll find on Android M or Windows 10.

Regardless, it’s clear Apple has been investing heavily in the Mac platform. The arrival of the two-pound MacBook, and the introduction of Force Touch, are prime examples of continued faith in the platform. But that hasn’t stopped a columnist in a certain major financially-oriented daily newspaper from suggesting that Apple would do better to kill the Mac platform?

Why? Well, I suppose because Macs only account for a fraction of Apple’s revenue and profits, so why allow it to divert attention from the mobile platforms? Take a deep breath!

Now it happens to be true that Apple earns higher profits from Macs than other PC makers manage. The Mac, while a small player in the global PC market, delivers a much higher percentage of sales in the medium to high-priced tiers, where the real money is made. Other companies may sell more gear, but a lot of it is low-margin junk that delivers poor performance and reliability. Yes, I suppose cheap PC desktops and note-books are suitable for email and Internet surfing, perhaps a little word processing and such, but how long will they survive under intense use?

Remember, too, that the Mac is still Apple’s go-to product for developing apps and creating content. Yes, even iPhone and iPad apps are built on Macs using simulators. Sure, perhaps the new multitasking features might allow Apple to provide native iPad developer tools, but not yet.

When it comes to productivity, the Mac still has it all over the iPad. I’ve already written two columns in recent days that explain why I cannot use an iPad for my workflow. That situation is not going to change unless or until Apple allows developers to build apps that would allow me to record my radio show, and perform all the editing functions I do now. And maybe not even then, depending on how well touchscreens can handle the chores I now perform quickly and easily with mouse and keyboard.

Most of this is pretty obvious, except to Apple critics who, perhaps deliberately, choose to ignore facts and engage in foolish flights of fancy. The general attitude is that they know more than Apple about how to run a company, and that Tim Cook, who made the company the largest in the world by market cap, hasn’t a clue. Just put them in his office for a few weeks, and things will change. But I’d rather not think how.

I do realize that, if the iPad becomes a more compelling alternative for productivity, some people won’t buy new Macs, or avoid any PC. Apple has clearly demonstrated that it isn’t afraid to lose a sale, particularly if you buy another Apple product instead. So while the iPad may have cannibalized the Mac somewhat early on, these days both the iPhone and Mac are taking sales from the iPad.

Sure, personal computers will become less and less relevant over time. I have little doubt that some people, particularly younger folk, will live to see the day when there are no more Macs, and that PCs are, in general, mostly history. Apple’s future prospects may, in part, depend on adapting to the new technologies, assuming they aren’t simply outgrowths of existing mobile gear.

At my advanced age, however, I expect to hang on to my Macs for a long time. Erosion of the platform may very well be gradual, unless there is a sudden rush to a next great thing. Macs forever? Well, that depends. But the suggestion Apple is on the wrong track with Macs is just plain dumb!

In yesterday’s column, I celebrated the addition of Split View and other enhanced iPad multitasking options for iOS 9. True, Split View will require an iPad Air 2, minimum,, but it represents a significant improvement, one that will provide more opportunities for being productive on these tablets. The feature might also pave the way for an even larger iPad, which some call iPad Pro, which may arrive with the fall model refresh.

All good things to be sure. But there are limitations on what developers can do under Apple’s sandboxing restrictions, and that might become the deal killer for people with the sort of workflow I have.

As most of you know, I host two nationally syndicated radio shows, and use Rogue Amoeba’s Audio Hijack to grab the audio from Skype and mix it with my mic. My current layout consists of a Behringer mixer with a USB interface and a set of mics that change depending on my needs. I normally use a Blue Yeti Pro, which has both traditional XLR and USB ports.

Of course, you can mix and match almost any conceivable combination of audio inputs with Audio Hijack. Unfortunately this app does its magic by using methods that do not appear to fit within Apple’s sandboxing guidelines, and thus this app and other products from Rogue Amoeba will, unless things change, be barred from the Mac App Store.

According to Rogue Amoeba CEO Paul Kafasis, in response to the forthcoming enhanced multitasking capabilities of the iPad:

Unfortunately, this doesn’t really change much for us. More powerful iPads will certainly be capable of performing more powerful tasks, and running more powerful applications.

However, for us, the major limitation on the iPad and iOS has always been artificial. That is, Apple’s restrictions on that platform, on what can be shipped through their app store, precludes apps like Audio Hijack, Airfoil, and Nicecast. Just as these apps don’t appear in the Mac App Store, due to Apple’s restrictions, they can’t appear on iOS at all (short of jailbreaking).

More power on both the hardware and software sides will certainly increase iPad productivity. Unfortunately, the artificial handicapping Apple puts in place will continue to preclude many types of applications from ever appearing on the device.

Now Apple doesn’t prevent you from installing Audio Hijack on a Mac. Rogue Amoeba sells their apps from their own site, and they have Apple developer certificates. So unless you block every app other than those offered in the Mac App Store, there’s no problem downloading and running it; an Option key on launch lets you run any app regardless of OS X’s Gatekeeper settings.

While I understand Apple’s penchant for security, Audio Hijack doesn’t make your Mac less secure. The same is true for the security and drive maintenance apps that are also blocked from being offered in the App Store.

Obviously the situation is less favorable on iOS. You can side-load apps if you jailbreak your device, which is something that makes it vulnerable to malware even if it allows you to install apps that Apple won’t approve. Yes, I realize you can install unofficial apps on an Android device without going through as many hoops, but I wouldn’t recommend it there either. Android has known potential security issues even when you stay with Google Play.

The practical impact of this situation is that there are lots of things that can be done on an iPad, but Apple’s restrictions, however well intentioned, are making it impossible to perform tasks routinely done on a Mac or PC. The inability to properly capture and record audio from Skype is a key example. Yes, I saw a product in the App Store, Sky Recorder, which is supposed to do just that apparently by using the app to initiate the conversation, and grab the audio from both ends. I suppose that is a workable if clumsy solution, but nowhere near as elegant as Audio Hijack.

For now then, that’s the deal-breaker when it comes to doing some of the tasks I require for my workflow. It doesn’t prevent me from making live recordings, or even editing a recording, but still. I shouldn’t be forced to go to a second device to handle some of my work.

The solution is in Apple’s hands. If there was a way to do this as Audio Hijack does, I would presume a developer would have figured it out. From Kafasis’ comments, I do believe he’d be willing to try if Apple provided the proper features in their developer tools. So far they won’t.

Now it may well be that the needs of radio hosts, including podcasters, aren’t terribly high on Apple’s list of iOS priorities. But the company that invented Proactive Siri to anticipate your needs and wants ought to be quite capable of opening the iOS platform to allow an app to seamlessly transfer audio and video to a recording app.

If that were possible, I can assure you I’d be using an iPad far more frequently.