INTERACT FORUM
Devices => Apple iPad, iPhone, iPod, Airplay => Topic started by: widert on June 10, 2015, 02:21:26 am
-
Would be interesting to know what you guys think about this.
In my opinion, the introduction of Apple Music will move consumers even further towards streaming of music, and hence JRiver needs to come up with a solution that allows for this to stay relevant...
Team up with Spotify or Tidal and create a solution that enables streaming to multiple zones with full control throug jremote? (Not through the WDM driver...)
Tom
-
Those companies are not interested in cooperation. We have tried.
-
Would be interesting to know what you guys think about this.
In my opinion, the introduction of Apple Music will move consumers even further towards streaming of music, and hence JRiver needs to come up with a solution that allows for this to stay relevant...
Team up with Spotify or Tidal and create a solution that enables streaming to multiple zones with full control throug jremote? (Not through the WDM driver...)
Tom
I for one have no interest in any of this and I am a consumer.....just saying
-
Those companies are not interested in cooperation. We have tried.
Yeah, I agree, I think its a dead end to try to cooperate with companies like that, they want to keep the marked for themselfs. However, the fact is that streaming is getting more and more popular, the WDM driver is somewhat tailored to this, are there other things MC could do to be more "compatible" with streaming providers without the help of the providers? Is streaming popular among MC customers and potensial customers? I think that is interesting questions.
-
Yeah, I agree, I think its a dead end to try to cooperate with companies like that, they want to keep the marked for themselfs. However, the fact is that streaming is getting more and more popular, the WDM driver is somewhat tailored to this, are there other things MC could do to be more "compatible" with streaming providers without the help of the providers? Is streaming popular among MC customers and potensial customers? I think that is interesting questions.
Streaming will take over music distribution almost completely with the introduction of Apple Music. I see, except from using JRiver, no use at all to buy/download music anymore... Perhaps the introduction into the market by Apple will make the other providers more willing to cooperate with JRiver?
-
Streaming will take over music distribution almost completely
Unfortunately that is probably true for new consumers who don't know any better.
The content providers love that model; they have almost total control over distribution and use and can continuously suck income out of the consumer.
As a collector of music for many decades it doesn't fit my requirements.
You need constant access to a reliable internet connection. That's not universal by any means.
The technical quality of the material is often very questionable (however high the claimed data rate).
Availability of material is split over multiple providers, so the consumer probably needs multiple subscriptions.
The providers can (and will) change the terms of access and the content that can be accessed at any time at their whim.
The providers can go out of business with no notice (and will).
I can see the attraction to the young, naive, smart phone addicted youth.
It's not so attractive to some of us!
-
Unfortunately that is probably true for new consumers who don't know any better.
The content providers love that model; they have almost total control over distribution and use and can continuously suck income out of the consumer.
As a collector of music for many decades it doesn't fit my requirements.
You need constant access to a reliable internet connection. That's not universal by any means.
The technical quality of the material is often very questionable (however high the claimed data rate).
Availability of material is split over multiple providers, so the consumer probably needs multiple subscriptions.
The providers can (and will) change the terms of access and the content that can be accessed at any time at their whim.
The providers can go out of business with no notice (and will).
I can see the attraction to the young, naive, smart phone addicted youth.
It's not so attractive to some of us!
And an artist could opt/pull out of these services!!
-
Well, like it or not, streaming is taking over, and if MC wants to be more than a very small player in this field, they must take that into consideration. Maybe they are content with being a very small player, I do not know, but the future of streaming is certainly something to consider at least, and it already has been done somewhat with the great WDM-feature.
-
Streaming will take over music distribution almost completely with the introduction of Apple Music.
"Apple Music" will most certainly not take over music distribution completely. There are a ton of streaming services out there now and none of them have "taken over" anything. There will be the usual ways to get your music for a long time to come whether it be CD, download or what have you.
And Apple is going to get a huge wakeup call when they find out just how close people really are to the "free" model that Spotify has. There is no way Apple will ever catch those guys charging any listener $10 or 12 bucks per month. Plus you have to use iTunes - which instantly places you using the worst music software ever created (at least on Windows).
My long range outlook on this will be a healthy does of early adopters during the "free trial" and then a quiet slip into the background of all the other players. With Spotify still firmly in the lead.
VP
-
Well, like it or not, streaming is taking over, and if MC wants to be more than a very small player in this field, they must take that into consideration.
They are taking it into consideration - read here...
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=98006.0
VP
-
From a philosophical point of view, I think streaming is the next step in the CHEAPENING of music. I use the word cheapening to mean "devalued", or "no longer valuable or appreciated".
Music is special, wonderful, important, and artistic. Every step to remove resolution, to make it easier to get, to make it more temporary, more transient.... every step removes some of it's specialness. This is why I'm against streaming.
I feel like the last man on earth with this opinion, as just about everyone I know is into streaming now. :(
Brian.
-
Music is special, wonderful, important, and artistic. Every step to remove resolution, to make it easier to get, to make it more temporary, more transient.... every step removes some of it's specialness. This is why I'm against streaming.
+1
I only use Spotify as a demo tool to see if I like a specific release. Then I go out and get it - either physical or download.
But oddly - we never actually use it to listen to music here. That why MC is in the house.
VP
-
They are taking it into consideration - read here...
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=98006.0
VP
I don't really see how having "their own", restricted streaming service takes that into account in any large way.
-
Streaming will take over music distribution almost completely with the introduction of Apple Music.
Anyone who thinks this is confused about Apple's market share/market influence. Apple only has about a fifth of the device market globally, and well less than half even in the U.S. (which outside of Japan is where they have the greatest market penetration). What's more their device market share is declining year-on-year. In terms of computers and laptops, they've only ever been a few percent of the market (they're basically neck and neck with Linux at this point).
Android has a much larger slice of the device pie than Apple, and Google Music didn't "take over music distribution."
Apple sells luxury products and is a style leader. They aren't in a position to "take over" much of anything at this point (barring a stunning uptick in iproduct adoption).
-
You need constant access to a reliable internet connection. That's not universal by any means.
Correct - mine is terrible! I find too much emphasis on streaming and the cloud. And in any case, I don't trust services that are in someone else's hands.
I want to play *my* music collection, not someone else's. Nor rely on services that could be taken away at the drop of a hat, which are lower quality anyway, or stop working because there's a server somewhere that's not responding.
-
Not interested. I've seen this play out before. Get people hooked on a too-good-to-be-true service and then slowly change the T&C and quality of the product to increase profits until people start making petitions and front-page Reddit posts about how evil your company is. Meanwhile you've raked in billions and have forced people to become dependent on your service (in this case, music streaming) because the cost of replacing all of that music they never actually owned is too high.
This doesn't even mention the insidiousness of DRM. Oh, you want to listen to music that you've paid for on a device that doesn't respect our DRM? You need to purchase a new one, from US. Eventually the PMP companies all have to incorporate those DRM technologies because people won't buy a player that's not compatible with their ecosystem. As the non-DRM players are no longer profitable they are phased out, which makes it that much more difficult to pry away from DRM when the consumers finally have had enough of their shenanigans
When I buy music, I can use or play it wherever I want and will be able to do so for the rest of my life. How much is that worth? Certainly more than the $200-$300/yr I'd save by switching to streaming right now. And certainly more than the amount of money you'll be forced to *pay to play* over the years in the ecosystem you get stuck in.
-
I don't really see how having "their own", restricted streaming service takes that into account in any large way.
What were you expecting? For JRiver to be allowed to duct tape themselves onto some other service?
All these services have clearly positioned themselves to be "their own" with each having a lockout mode - where you need their product to get their content.
Your comment was "Well, like it or not, streaming is taking over, and if MC wants to be more than a very small player in this field, they must take that into consideration"
So either they can offer nothing (Be a media player only) and be a "no" player or create their own streaming infrastructure and be a "streaming" player. Yes?
That said - If you are thinking that JRiver has the resource and clout to complete with Spotifys and Apples of the world - you probably need to dial back your enthusiasm a bit. When compared with the user base and reach of a Spotify and/or Apple - MC is an extreme niche product with a miniscule (but very devoted) following.
That they are attempting any kind of streaming activity should be a good thing - yes?
VP
-
This doesn't even mention the insidiousness of DRM. Oh, you want to listen to music that you've paid for on a device that doesn't respect our DRM? You need to purchase a new one, from US. Eventually the PMP companies all have to incorporate those DRM technologies because people won't buy a player that's not compatible with their ecosystem. As the non-DRM players are no longer profitable they are phased out, which makes it that much more difficult to pry away from DRM when the consumers finally have had enough of their shenanigans
Or the fact that I could see Apple suddenly killing off the ability for Spotify (or others) to offer their apps via the App store.
I can't see Apple allowing their sheep any chance to use anything but iTunes for their streaming fun.
VP
-
What were you expecting? For JRiver to be allowed to duct tape themselves onto some other service?
All these services have clearly positioned themselves to be "their own" with each having a lockout mode - where you need their product to get their content.
Your comment was "Well, like it or not, streaming is taking over, and if MC wants to be more than a very small player in this field, they must take that into consideration"
So either they can offer nothing (Be a media player only) and be a "no" player or create their own streaming infrastructure and be a "streaming" player. Yes?
That said - If you are thinking that JRiver has the resource and clout to complete with Spotifys and Apples of the world - you probably need to dial back your enthusiasm a bit. When compared with the user base and reach of a Spotify and/or Apple - MC is an extreme niche product with a miniscule (but very devoted) following.
That they are attempting any kind of streaming activity should be a good thing - yes?
VP
Well, I opened for discussion about this earlier in the thread, I don't have much when it comes to expectations on this front. It probably is difficult, maybe even impossible, but I think it shoudl be dicussed what MC could do to be more "compatible", with the streaming services, the WDM-driver is already a part of this.
And i do not agree that the only options are to offer nothing or be a streamings service themselfs.
To be honest, the MC-streaming service is totally useless for me, I don't see it as a good thing, other than i hope it gives the company some income for little work.
-
Well, I opened for discussion about this earlier in the thread, I don't have much when it comes to expectations on this front. It probably is difficult, maybe even impossible, but I think it should be discussed what MC could do to be more "compatible", with the streaming services, the WDM-driver is already a part of this.
I think the overall "expectations" for MC to be able to be "compatible" with any of the major services is nil. The majors became majors by keeping their services on their platforms and doing things their way. Unless you have a boat load of cash to front some sort of "compatibility" potential. But Jim and co have mentioned many times that they are not in that game.
And i do not agree that the only options are to offer nothing or be a streaming service themselves.
Well - what else is there. Let us all know.
To be honest, the MC-streaming service is totally useless for me, I don't see it as a good thing, other than i hope it gives the company some income for little work.
Well- you asked the question. At least JRiver is trying to provide something - even if that something is not a big ticket item for many of us. But if you keep thinking that MC is gonna offer Spotify - built in - using the WDM driver - you will probably be waiting a long time.
When I really need to stream something quickly - it's easier to just use Spotify and be done with it.
But for real serious listening - I will simply continue to use MC the way I have always used it - my way.
VP
-
At vocalpoint why should music be free ,jriver aint free
-
But for real serious listening - I will simply continue to use MC the way I have always used it - my way.
VP
;D
-
At vocalpoint why should music be free ,jriver aint free
Where did I say music should be free? Artists should be getting every nickel they have coming to them and I would be happy to pay them directly if I could :)
And I am also happy to pay JRiver as well. Nary has an app given me so much enjoyment.
VP
-
I think the overall "expectations" for MC to be able to be "compatible" with any of the major services is nil. The majors became majors by keeping their services on their platforms and doing things their way. Unless you have a boat load of cash to front some sort of "compatibility" potential. But Jim and co have mentioned many times that they are not in that game.
Well - what else is there. Let us all know.
Well- you asked the question. At least JRiver is trying to provide something - even if that something is not a big ticket item for many of us. But if you keep thinking that MC is gonna offer Spotify - built in - using the WDM driver - you will probably be waiting a long time.
When I really need to stream something quickly - it's easier to just use Spotify and be done with it.
But for real serious listening - I will simply continue to use MC the way I have always used it - my way.
VP
I said the same earlier, I think it is pointless to expect cooperation from the streaming services, therefore one should look at other solutions.
The WDM driver has been mentioned several times, it improves compatibility with streaming services. Of course, it is no where near a complete spotify compatibility, but at the very least it lets you feed the audio through MC, it is something, something more than nothing.
-
I said the same earlier, I think it is pointless to expect cooperation from the streaming services, therefore one should look at other solutions.
But you still haven't indicated what you believe these other solutions are?
The majors had to go thru a ton of teething issues, contractual discussions with major labels, probably gobs of cash in infrastructure, development and so on. If I was a major that laid out that kind of capitol - I wouldn't want anyone piggybacking on my thing either :)
Personally - I could care less about any type of "streaming" as a prime source of music enjoyment. Here in Canada - with the high cost of mobile data plans - there will never ever be any concept of paying money to listen to a crappy 128KB stream to any of our devices. If we are on the road - it's the radio. If I am on the bus - it's my iPod. If we are popping beers on the patio at the house - it's MC.
And while others have mentioned "streaming" is the way with their circle of friends - I am hard pressed to find anyone in my circle that actually streams anything. Matter of fact - it's hard to find anyone in my circle that even cares about music anymore :(
VP
-
But you still haven't indicated what you believe these other solutions are?
No, because I posted it as a topic that should be discussed, potential ways to "solve" this problem. I have never said I have the solution, I want a "brainstorming" of what solutions could be possible. Streaming is very popular, and will probably be more popular in the near future.
-
The only 'streaming' I want to do is listening to my music around the house. Accurate audio sync between zones is of infinitely greater interest to me.
-
No, because I posted it as a topic that should be discussed, potential ways to "solve" this problem. I have never said I have the solution, I want a "brainstorming" of what solutions could be possible. Streaming is very popular, and will probably be more popular in the near future.
Well - there really are only three ways to get your rock and roll fix.
1. Either have the physical media (Digital file, CD, LP etc) and a player to play it with.
2. Have a streaming app and hit their library either free or by subscription.
3. Turn on the radio and put up with that crap.
MC is a closed app with it's own infrastructure - the same as every other software "player" out there. While I (The consumer) do not see a defacto need to alter MC to be a streaming powerhouse in any way - others may feel differently.
Reality is clear tho - the days of using an app like "MC" as a primary media source are numbered. While old schoolers like me with the time and resource (and desire) to assemble a huge digital music library will always have a need to have MC around - there are countless thousands or millions who have neither the time, resource (or any interest whatsoever) to assemble anything - so streaming fits their agenda perfectly.
JRiver is probably looking at the future and feeling a bit tense about it - understandably. But I would not count out the old schoolers just yet :) And I also would not waste any time trying to make MC into the next Spotify either. That ship has sailed and nothing JRiver can (or might do) would make a Spotify user suddenly swing over to MC - which is what this is really about anyway.
That said - if JRiver can make their streaming project work - more power to them. But in the end - I think licensing, regional restrictions and a whole bunch of other red tape will probably prevent it from having a wide reach.
VP
-
What you are saying just isn't the case, one can use a streaming app in conjunction to MC to some degree today (more in the past, with for instance the netflix-plugin).
I have never suggested that MC should be a streaming provider, I don't think it has that much merit (maybe as some "easy money" if the make that from it, but nothing more). I want some kind of brainstorming around being more or less compatible with existing streaming services.
-
One can use a streaming app in conjunction to MC to some degree today (more in the past, with for instance the netflix-plugin).
My question would be - why bother? Why would I (not necessarily you) want to take any already heavily compressed, lossy, crappy music feed coming out of the Spotify desktop app and run that "in conjunction" with MC? To save myself a massive headache - I would just leave the Spotify app running and leave it at that. That's just about as good as I (or anyone else) needs that stream to be.
While I fully appreciate what MC does with my hi def lossless library via my main system - I could never see myself wanting to run a crappy lifeless Spotify stream through it for 8 hours a day. Conversely I can see myself wanting to run 8 hours of my own library through it :)
I want some kind of brainstorming around being more or less compatible with existing streaming services.
Back on the topic of compatibility - I never see it happening and not just with MC.
Kinda like the thread from a month or two ago where MC and Tidal were in talks to maybe work together - I think I remember the JRiver gang saying that Tidal wanted JRiver dev to start changing a bunch of stuff in a major way in MC to fit "their" idea of compatibility. And quite rightly JRiver told them it wasn't going to happen.
So therein lies the rub. Seems the biggest the service you try to approach on "compatibility" - the more final say that service wants in granting you "access" the their stuff or - it costs way to much to buy in. Or they simply say no.
VP
-
My question would be - why bother? Why would I (not necessarily you) want to take any already heavily compressed, lossy, crappy music feed and run that "in conjunction" with MC?
While I fully appreciate what MC does with my hi def lossless library via my main system - I could never see myself wanting to run a crappy lifeless stream through it for 8 hours a day. Conversely I can see myself wanting to run 8 hours of my own library through it :)
Back on the topic of compatibility - I never see it happening and not just with MC.
Kinda like the thread from a month or two ago where MC and Tidal were in talks to maybe work together - I think I remember the JRiver gang saying that Tidal wanted JRiver dev to start changing a bunch of stuff in a major way in MC to fit "their" idea of compatibility. And quite rightly JRiver told them it wasn't going to happen.
So therein lies the rub. Seems the biggest the service you try to approach on "compatibility" - the more final say that service wants in granting you "access" the their stuff. If JRiver really wanted to be "compatible" with some streaming service - where do they draw the line on altering MC to fit the "other guys" idea of compatibility. I wouldn't be giving up my brand or look or feel either if it was my app.
VP
People who aren't interested in streaming isn't in the group more "streamingfriendly" features would cater to, so it frankly doesn't matter what that group of people thinks about those features, what matters is how many people who use streaming use MC, and potentially stop using because of streaming, and how many people using streaming could potenially be MC-customers. Quite a lot of people use streaming services.
To repeat my self yet again, I do not see talking to the companies getting anywhere, I think MC must look at ideas where they are not dependant on the good-will of the streaming services. Your rub is thus not relevant for that part of the discussion.
-
To repeat my self yet again, I do not see talking to the companies getting anywhere, I think MC must look at ideas where they are not dependant on the good-will of the streaming services. Your rub is thus not relevant for that part of the discussion.
So steal the stream without them knowing? Or simply find a way to pipe an already present stream in the PC - thru MC? Isn't that already doable via the WDM driver?
Apologies but I do not know where you are going with this...
VP
-
So steal the stream without them knowing? Or simply find a way to pipe an already present stream in the PC - thru MC? Isn't that already doable via the WDM driver?
Apologies but I do not know where you are going with this...
VP
Yes, piping present stream, or rather, piping present streaming service, WDM is audio only, it gives no feedback to the streaming services int he form of changing songs, getting info about what is played and so on, neither does it support video.
-
Or rather, piping present streaming service
Well - if a providers stream actually contains proprietary metadata about song changes and so on - using the data correctly would most likely only ever work for the app connected to the service itself.
I will assume that Spotify "owns" their stream AND - it's metadata payload.
Taking/manipulating that metadata without the "good will" of the provider - sounds - well...a tad illegal.
VP
-
Well - if a providers stream actually contains proprietary metadata about song changes and so on - using the data correctly would most likely only ever work for the app connected to the service itself.
I will assume that Spotify "owns" their stream AND - it's metadata payload.
Taking/manipulating that metadata without the "good will" of the provider - sounds - well...a tad illegal.
VP
Maybe, maybe not, that is why I am asking if anybody has any ideas on what do do, just to take an example in spotify, the name of the song playing turns up in the task manager beside the spotify-icon, this is probably extractable somehow, maybe not general enough, or not worth the trouble, but just to illustrate what kind of ideas I am thinking of.
The one "taking" the metadata is the spotify-user, that has a paid service, i am not a lawyer, but seems unlikely that this is illegal to me, it is just extracting info from a service you already have paid for for you own use.
-
The one "taking" the metadata is the spotify-user, that has a paid service, i am not a lawyer, but seems unlikely that this is illegal to me, it is just extracting info from a service you already have paid for for you own use.
Fair enough. But paid user or not - I do not think you could start messing with the service.
That would be like me "doctoring" my cable feed here in the house. Sure - I pay for the service - but my cable co would freak if they found me decrypting movie channels and capturing .avi files to burn to DVD...
VP
-
Fair enough. But paid user or not - I do not think you could start messing with the service.
That would be like me "doctoring" my cable feed here in the house. Sure - I pay for the service - but my cable co would freak if they found me decrypting movie channels and capturing .avi files to burn to DVD...
VP
I think the legal consideration can be discussed if there are concrete things the devs consider implementing, this is more of an idea phase.
-
I think the legal consideration can be discussed if there are concrete things the devs consider implementing, this is more of an idea phase.
FWIW - I think it's pretty clear (with the Doctor Who project) - what JRiver is considering with respect to "streaming".
Seems like the focus is their own backyard - not in accommodating or operating in conjunction with any other services at this time.
Fine by me.
VP
-
FWIW - I think it's pretty clear (with the Doctor Who project) - what JRiver is considering with respect to "streaming".
Seems like the focus is their own backyard - not in accommodating or operating in conjunction with any other services at this time.
Fine by me.
VP
Could be, I will let that be up to the developers, if you don't think your time is well spent coming with suggestions, it is fine not too.
-
The only 'streaming' I want to do is listening to my music around the house. Accurate audio sync between zones is of infinitely greater interest to me.
This plus a more user friendly means to add and interact with streaming radio services from JR. It seems from the comments so far that streaming is assumed to be use of an all in one service like a Spotify, Tidal or Pandora? I tend to use what I consider streaming differently. I use the Logitech Media Server (Slimserver as was) and software Squeezeplay clients on Windows and Linux PCs (in other words no proprietary hardware devices) to play either my own CD rips, podcasts or free "radio" streams off the internet, all through the same interface if I wish. Everything syncs up seamlessly all around the house across 4 different systems if I wish, even across a rather flaky wireless link. BTW (and I may have this wrong since I haven't checked in detail) but all that software seems to be open source if an alternative to DLNA is required in order to achieve seamless syncing; if only to perhaps learn from it.
As an example of content I can listen to KDFC (Bay Area classical station), or Linn Classical, or Venice Classic Radio as my favorites but there seem to be a gazillion other choices if I wish. Its easy to browse and change channel if I fancy something different. The quality of some of the radio channels aren't great with too much compression, but we shouldn't generalize. Linn for example streams at 320kbps, NRK Classic (Norway) and P2 Musik (Sweden) at 192kbps, while KDFC and Venice are at 128kbps.
Just my 2c :)
-
Could be, I will let that be up to the developers, if you don't think your time is well spent coming with suggestions, it is fine not too.
That's cool. My time is probably better spent on coming up with things that keep MC getting better in the environment where I use it most - inside my house.
VP
-
To spin abit around this, Spotify for instance has an API, not open to commercial programs(?) but it exists, how about plugin-support? That might solve some of the streaming services at least. How about the rest? Like Netflix, they have a web-interface right? Maybe making the program better at accessing streaming web-content from inside MC?
-
Like Netflix, they have a web-interface right? Maybe making the program better at accessing streaming web-content from inside MC?
Netflix was supported in JRiver for years. Support was removed in release 20.0.39.
20.0.39 (11/17/2014)
8. Changed: Removed Netflix support since their public API closed down on 11/14/2014.
-
Netflix was supported in JRiver for years. Support was removed in release 20.0.39.
Yeah I know, but that doesn't change the situation today.
-
To spin abit around this, Spotify for instance has an API, not open to commercial programs(?) but it exists, how about plugin-support?
This is already possible. MC's plugin architecture would absolutely allow one of us to build a Spotify plugin that would work with their public API. But JRiver cannot do it, and if you do it, Spotify could revoke your API key at any time. Would they? Probably not, I'd guess, but they won't approve JRiver building it into their app directly.
-
just to take an example in spotify, the name of the song playing turns up in the task manager beside the spotify-icon, this is probably extractable somehow, maybe not general enough, or not worth the trouble, but just to illustrate what kind of ideas I am thinking of.
The problem with that approach, aside from the technical details, is that you're inviting a cat-and-mouse game between the two companies. Any time you're "illicitly" scraping something like that, all it takes is for Spotify to arbitrarily change things (intentional or not) and all of your work goes flush down the tubes.
Worse, you have customers who now expect a feature to work (and, you could argue, have paid for a feature) which might be gone forever, completely beyond your control. Even if you get it working again (pouring more time, money, and effort down the hole), they could break it again the next day.
If Spotify was the One-True-Service that everyone had and needed to be supported, it might be worth it. As it is, though, that's a dangerous game, especially since someone could do a nice job and do it "right" with the Spotify API. Just not JRiver.
-
This is already possible. MC's plugin architecture would absolutely allow one of us to build a Spotify plugin that would work with their public API. But JRiver cannot do it, and if you do it, Spotify could revoke your API key at any time. Would they? Probably not, I'd guess, but they won't approve JRiver building it into their app directly.
Ok, but no plugin exists, is there anything on the program side that can be done to make plugins easier or something, or is it just that nobody has bothered?
-
The problem with that approach, aside from the technical details, is that you're inviting a cat-and-mouse game between the two companies. Any time you're "illicitly" scraping something like that, all it takes is for Spotify to arbitrarily change things (intentional or not) and all of your work goes flush down the tubes.
Worse, you have customers who now expect a feature to work (and, you could argue, have paid for a feature) which might be gone forever, completely beyond your control. Even if you get it working again (pouring more time, money, and effort down the hole), they could break it again the next day.
If Spotify was the One-True-Service that everyone had and needed to be supported, it might be worth it. As it is, though, that's a dangerous game, especially since someone could do a nice job and do it "right" with the Spotify API. Just not JRiver.
Spotify isn't the best example, as an API exists, my point was just to spin a bit around what could be done to further support streaming services besides the WDM-driver, you always risk some change breaking compatibility, but that can happen with an API too, and it has already happened with several features in MC. I don't think the risk of it not working someday is a strong enough argument to never implement support.
-
This idea has merit. That's why it gets regular air time here on Interact. The same explanations are posted every time. To my reading, those explanations are both sensible and reasonable.
The end point is the same. The proponents of these streaming services want to protect their IP and the associated value stream, so they make it costly and difficult for commercial outfits to join in. Scope exists for an individual to invest their own time to code up a means of bridging the gap but it hasn't happened.
Put the call for help to the community not JRiver corporate. To date, I've not seen a capable and motivated individual(s) prepared to roll up their sleeves. No resentment from me on that score, just stating the facts as I see them.
Personally I think JRiver has done their best as far as their scope for action extends by developing the WDM driver. I know it's not perfect but at least it provides a work around. This scores kudos in my book.
So, unless there's a game changer out there to talk about can we move on?
-
Unfortunately that is probably true for new consumers who don't know any better.
The content providers love that model; they have almost total control over distribution and use and can continuously suck income out of the consumer.
As a collector of music for many decades it doesn't fit my requirements.
You need constant access to a reliable internet connection. That's not universal by any means.
The technical quality of the material is often very questionable (however high the claimed data rate).
Availability of material is split over multiple providers, so the consumer probably needs multiple subscriptions.
The providers can (and will) change the terms of access and the content that can be accessed at any time at their whim.
The providers can go out of business with no notice (and will).
I can see the attraction to the young, naive, smart phone addicted youth.
It's not so attractive to some of us!
I think you hit the nail on the head there...
Here is how I view this...
Apple is well known to always have a target audience in mind whenever they put out any of their new products / services...
It will be quite ridiculous of them to expect anyone with a 20 year (just an example) collection of Vinyls, CDs... etc... in a like 30K file audio library, equipped with JRiver, impressive DACs, speakers amps and what not, suddenly drop everything and begin to stream 256kb m4a files... yuk...
Been using JRiver for audio since like 7 - 8 years already (currently with a +$5K audio gear) how in hell is anyone going to convince me that the apple streaming service will be a better choice for listening...
IMO, it is good if JRiver crew wish to add a streaming plugin, but for the class of devoted JRiver users, the majority of us might like to be able to turn the streaming functionality off if possible...
-
This idea has merit. That's why it gets regular air time here on Interact. The same explanations are posted every time. To my reading, those explanations are both sensible and reasonable.
The end point is the same. The proponents of these streaming services want to protect their IP and the associated value stream, so they make it costly and difficult for commercial outfits to join in. Scope exists for an individual to invest their own time to code up a means of bridging the gap but it hasn't happened.
Put the call for help to the community not JRiver corporate. To date, I've not seen a capable and motivated individual(s) prepared to roll up their sleeves. No resentment from me on that score, just stating the facts as I see them.
Personally I think JRiver has done their best as far as their scope for action extends by developing the WDM driver. I know it's not perfect but at least it provides a work around. This scores kudos in my book.
So, unless there's a game changer out there to talk about can we move on?
I think more can be done, I think it might be important to do more, and I am not ready to move on :) The WDM driver is very nice, but I think there could be potential for more.
IMHO people who are looking to stream everything and "throw out their collection", probably won't be using MC anyway, but there is a middle ground here, namely having bot local files AND using streaming. Besides, i think people should be careful about calling people who like streaming naive, especially in light of what blind testing actually shows about lossy compression and expensive DACs.
-
My use of naive referred to knowledge of corporate behaviour not technical standards!
I occasionally stream the BBC radio feeds (they are technically better than the broadcast feeds), so I have no objection to the technology. It's the implementation that's dodgy.
-
IMO, it is good if JRiver crew wish to add a streaming plugin, but for the class of devoted JRiver users, the majority of us might like to be able to turn the streaming functionality off if possible...
+1
The industry reputation of JRiver rests squarely on being the best sounding "audiophile" apps available today. And they did not get that rep by worrying about how "streaming" is going to sound.
I believe JRiver's core audience is not the 20 something smartphone crowd that could not give a crap about audio quality. And as such - there is little point to placing tons of dev time towards streaming when there is nothing JRiver can do to improve upon the sound. a 256k stream is still a 256k stream whether it runs through JRiver or not.
That said - if a MC plugin showed up one day - I am sure a few would dig it. But as suggested - I agree that the bulk of the MC base probably can't be bothered.
For me personally - IF I did feel the need to stream Spotify (For example) - their apps are free, easy to use and the sound is fine. Even if MC had a plugin - I really have no desire to even bother with it in this case.
VP
-
+1
The industry reputation of JRiver rests squarely on being the best sounding "audiophile" apps available today. And they did not get that rep by worrying about how "streaming" is going to sound.
I believe JRiver's core audience is not the 20 something smartphone crowd that could not give a crap about audio quality. And as such - there is little point to placing tons of dev time towards streaming when there is nothing JRiver can do to improve upon the sound. a 256k stream is still a 256k stream whether it runs through JRiver or not.
That said - if a MC plugin showed up one day - I am sure a few would dig it. But as suggested - I agree that the bulk of the MC base probably can't be bothered.
For me personally - IF I did feel the need to stream Spotify (For example) - their apps are free, easy to use and the sound is fine. Even if MC had a plugin - I really have no desire to even bother with it in this case.
VP
I hope it doesn't as long as decoding and all that is done properly, and no particualr filtering is done, there is no difference in how programs sounds.
You don't have to be 20 something, nor be a person "who don't give a crap about sound quality", to use streaming. You are continuing to pretend everything is black and white when it comes to this, it is not.
-
I hope it doesn't as long as decoding and all that is done properly, and no particualr filtering is done, there is no difference in how programs sounds. You don't have to be 20 something, nor be a person "who don't give a crap about sound quality", to use streaming. You are continuing to pretend everything is black and white when it comes to this, it is not.
I am not implying that you don't have to care about sound quality to use streaming.
Why I am saying quite clearly is the millions of other 20 somethings, 30 somethings or 80 somethings out there that "live by streaming" or treat it as their defacto way to listen to music these days - don't (and never will) do it using MC. They will never pay 50 dollars to ever be tied down to a software app on a PC at home. They get their fix using a free app on a lowest common denominator cellphone where audio quality is truly non-existent.
Jeez - even me - a devoted MC fan if there even was one - can't be bothered with using MC to stream anything.
My only streaming service right now is Spotify and while I enjoy it when I do use it - I wouldn't go out of my way to use it in MC even if there was a way to do it.
Given the low grade sound quality - it's easier to just fire up the desktop app or mobile app and leave it at that.
VP
-
Those companies are not interested in cooperation. We have tried.
But haven't the likes of Spotify, Qobuz, Deezer and Tidal cooperated with companies like Sonos, Linn, Meridian and Naim? So the streaming companies clearly are interested in cooperating with some people at least. It would be fantastic if you guys could bring your tremendous expertise with playback, searching and viewing to these tremendous sources of content. It's only a matter of time before I go with either Tidal, roon or Qobuz and it will be so, so sad to not be able to integrate their content into my carefully built MC library.
-
I hope it doesn't as long as decoding and all that is done properly, and no particualr filtering is done, there is no difference in how programs sounds.
You don't have to be 20 something, nor be a person "who don't give a crap about sound quality", to use streaming. You are continuing to pretend everything is black and white when it comes to this, it is not.
I agree it's not that black and white. I for one would love to integrate my local library with a streaming service. Also blind tests show imho that 320kbs MP3 is good enough most of the time. And in my own personal experience the benefits of lossless and or high res are minor at best.
-
But haven't the likes of Spotify, Qobuz, Deezer and Tidal cooperated with companies like Sonos, Linn, Meridian and Naim? So the streaming companies clearly are interested in cooperating with some people at least.
By the looks of this list - and the fact that I have Spotify on my new Marantz AVR as well - seems that if you are a high end hardware manufacturer (with deep pockets) - the "spotifys" of the world do want to meet with you.
It's probably the "cost" of doing this kind of business is the key limiting factor for a JRiver et al. Plus the fact that "hardware" is more of a static environment where the streaming vendor can get their way on the plugin and how it looks on the hardware.
It's like my Oppo BDP-105. Has a killer Netflix interface built-in - but it's not something anyone can mess with or even access.
VP
-
And in my own personal experience the benefits of lossless and or high res are minor at best.
But in my environment with the hardware and resource at much higher levels - the differences are major. There is no way any streaming service (at least the ones I can get in Canada) is going to stand up quality wise to MC delivering hi-res lossless from our media server into 10K worth of high end gear.
VP
-
I am not implying that you don't have to care about sound quality to use streaming.
Why I am saying quite clearly is the millions of other 20 somethings, 30 somethings or 80 somethings out there that "live by streaming" or treat it as their defacto way to listen to music these days - don't (and never will) do it using MC. They will never pay 50 dollars to ever be tied down to a software app on a PC at home. They get their fix using a free app on a lowest common denominator cellphone where audio quality is truly non-existent.
Jeez - even me - a devoted MC fan if there even was one - can't be bothered with using MC to stream anything.
My only streaming service right now is Spotify and while I enjoy it when I do use it - I wouldn't go out of my way to use it in MC even if there was a way to do it.
Given the low grade sound quality - it's easier to just fire up the desktop app or mobile app and leave it at that.
VP
There are clearly millions that are not possible customers to MC, but there are also clearly a lot of customers or potential customers that are interested in streaming.
Even you don't use it you say, I personally use the WDM-driver and send the music through there, and I am sure that I am not alone. It would be even better if the support was better.
It is impossible for any of us to say just how big the group of people who are interested in both MC and streaming are, I think it is a sizable amount though.
-
But in my environment with the hardware and resource at much higher levels - the differences are major. There is no way any streaming service (at least the ones I can get in Canada) is going to stand up quality wise to MC delivering hi-res lossless from our media server into 10K worth of high end gear.
VP
No, the differences between proper lossy and lossless are not major, no matter the gear. But this is a bit on the side of the discussion, you don't like streaming, fine, but please try to look at the big picture, not just what you and I like.
-
But the difference between lossless and lossey is far from the biggest difference in sound quality.
The biggest difference is which release of the album.
The most famous difference is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
You can absolutely bet that all the "remastered" versions with heavy clipping (and "bonus tracks" that only the Estate of dead artists would agree to release) are what are streaming.
The big labels do not acknowledge the widespread problem with the more recent "remastered" versions.
But even if you "let the artist decide which version", you can still get into problems.
Iggy and the Stooges were a relatively obscure hard rock band until they arranged for David Bowie to mix their third album "Raw Power". Bowie created a brilliant mix that emphasized the unique brash and dark quality of the band's sound. The result was a giant classic that Chrissie Hynde used to carry under her arm while wandering about London looking for musicians to form a band. Certainly it is the most influential Punk album of all time.
Years later, Iggy decided to personally remix the album, and ended up with something which balanced all the instruments evenly, resulting perhaps in what Iggy might have heard live from the stage monitors. The result totally removed all the evocative qualities of Bowie's mix, and ended up sounding like a very average garage band.
This is the version you get in U.S. stores and when streaming.
Only when you collect the music yourself and use JRiver MediaCenter, can you hear the best version of each album.
-
But the difference between lossless and lossey is far from the biggest difference in sound quality.
The biggest difference is which release of the album.
The most famous difference is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loudness_war
You can absolutely bet that all the "remastered" versions with heavy clipping (and "bonus tracks" that only the Estate of dead artists would agree to release) are what are streaming.
The big labels do not acknowledge the widespread problem with the more recent "remastered" versions.
But even if you "let the artist decide which version", you can still get into problems.
Iggy and the Stooges were a relatively obscure hard rock band until they arranged for David Bowie to mix their third album "Raw Power". Bowie created a brilliant mix that emphasized the unique brash and dark quality of the band's sound. The result was a giant classic that Chrissie Hynde used to carry under her arm while wandering about London looking for musicians to form a band. Certainly it is the most influential Punk album of all time.
Years later, Iggy decided to personally remix the album, and ended up with something which balanced all the instruments evenly, resulting perhaps in what Iggy might have heard live from the stage monitors. The result totally removed all the evocative qualities of Bowie's mix, and ended up sounding like a very average garage band.
This is the version you get in U.S. stores and when streaming.
Only when you collect the music yourself and use JRiver MediaCenter, can you hear the best version of each album.
This is true and that is why I want an integrated library of my local and streamed music.
I am a diehard Stooges fan and have seen him live numerous times and I am still baffled by that remaster...
The first cd release was a major letdown too because it sounded so thin compared to the lp version. And I am a firm believer in the supiority of the cd format...it just was bad mastering. When I listen to Raw Power I still use a digitized version of the lp ;)
-
No, the differences between proper lossy and lossless are not major, no matter the gear.
Apologies but you are in no position to advise me or anyone else on the differences of lossy to lossless. Let's just agree to disagree. :)
Anyhoo - back on the track of this thread - and the "consequence" of JRiver and the so called impending "doom" of Apple Music:
1. I do not think JRiver has anything to worry about. They own the audiophile market and no amount of Apple Music is going to change that. The 20 something 'iSheep" will drift over to Apple music and those of us who take a bit more "pride of ownership" or whatever you want to call when it comes to enjoying our audio will continue to enjoy JRiver.
2. With regards to more streaming "support" - I thought that's what the WDM driver was intended to service? If one can now use an entire instance of MC as an audio driver - just direct the Spotify or RDIO or whatever streaming app you choose to that "driver" and there you go. I still fail to see the need for any more "support" or plugins more fancy than that. And given the fact that JRiver is clearly pursuing their own streaming project - any further potential for better "support" for the "other guys" has probably already been decided.
3. Finally - kstuart nailed it. Streaming gives you zero choice - you get what they feed you. For me personally - there is no room in my life for any "remaster" of any track that a streaming source decides to stick out there. Apple Music will be the same - with 100% of the tracks being goosed with dynamic range compression and a brickwall of noise pounding at you.
I will stick with MC and my pristine library of original first pressings and enjoy the best version of any given album at any given time.
And for those times that I need to check out a new release to see if it's worth the effort - I will pop over to Spotify for that.
VP
-
For the Stooges fans in this thread, they re-released the original Bowie master of Raw Power on CD last year. I picked it up and it sounds (to me) pretty close to my vinyl copy, so if anyone wants a "lossless" version of the original master it's floating around now.
-
Even when we get to the point of super-wide bandwidth (because we are way behind in the U.S., like behind Vietnam even), and super-reliable service, I *still* wouldn't pay for streaming.
It's not my music and I would be at the complete whim of all sorts of business decisions that have nothing to do with me or my interests.
When I own an LP, a CD, or digital download (no DRM!), I can play it when and where I want (pretty much).
I have records I bought 40+ years ago and CDs from whenever they came out.
How many of these services will be around in 10 years? or 20?
Streaming is flushing money down the toilet as far as I'm concerned.
-
Streaming is flushing money down the toilet as far as I'm concerned.
Have to agree. There is no guarantees on anything there and they could cut you off immediately and indefinitely. I can't see myself ever investing in any service even in the short term.
VP
-
Hi Everyone, I thought I'd make a contribution to this topic as I have quite a few streaming apps that I run/launch through theater view using the remote and I think it works passably, but there are improvements to MC that could be made to make this process easier for users (it required hours of configuring/fiddling to get this working, which I accept the average user will not want to do). All of this has been made much easier by the new WDM feature. At the outset I should say that like others I run the majority of my content locally (mostly audio) so streaming is not the main reason I use MC. The main reason I have set MC up to use these services is so that I don't have to get off the couch and go near the computer if I want to watch netflix, use spotify etc.
I currently have a number of streaming services set up to run through a browser (Netflix and various catchup TV sites). I use chrome in 'kiosk' mode for this and have set up my remote to emulate a mouse to enable navigation through Eventghost. MC minimises on launch and my stop button on the remote is configured to run taskkill on chrome, which bounces it back to MC theater view. The only issue that I have had with this setup is if I take too long to select something to watch MC will pop back up (this hasn't happened for a while, so perhaps something has changed in MC to fix this).
I also run software called AirServer in the background, which allows anyone with an iDevice to stream content (subject to any DRM issues of course).
I launch spotify and use spotify connect to control it on my phone. Again, I just press stop on the remote to kill it.
Suggestions:
- In my view I don't think J River should be making any effort to integrate with proprietary streaming services or applications. For the reasons others have given on this thread, it's just too hard to maintain compatibility and would require too much work. To the extent that there is any integration it should rely on standard windows/OS functionality.
- I think it would be possible to develop a wizard to configure launching of external applications such as browsers, the Windows 8.1/10 Netflix App (or similar Apps) using standard windows functionality. Such a wizard would need to ask a few questions to set up the button in theatre view - What is the name of the app?/What is the internet address?/Do you want the app to be fullscreen or minimised behind J River?/Do you want J River to process the audio for this App? (ie to direct playback to the WDM driver). I appreciate this would require users to use their mouse/keyboard to control the app that is launched or use eventghost like I am currently. I assume it would involve too much work to integrate basic mouse emulation into J River (ie where J River is minimised and an external application is in focus)?
- For audio only streams to the WDM driver would it be possible to show the name of the application where the audio is being streamed from (rather than just IPC)?
- Would it be possible to configure the 'jump on play' option on a per zone basis? (Currently when you launch an external application and have this set to jump to playing now it brings J River back into focus rather than continuing to display the external app. For audio I now have this set to 'do nothing' for this reason.)
Re Apple Music, I assume this will be implemented in such a way that you can 'airplay' the stream to compatible devices or run it through iTunes. I acknowledge it's possible that DRM may be implemented that prevents use of AirServer (or something similar). The other option might be to have iTunes running in the background and control that with the iDevice. I don't think that's currently possible?
-
Actually jrmc already has its build in streaming service, the performer store. If I remember correctly it even lets you virtually add song and albums to your own library so they are presented as one. It only needs a good radio and playlist feature. And of course a higher bitrate then the current 128kbs to make it useful for regular listening.
-
Apologies but you are in no position to advise me or anyone else on the differences of lossy to lossless. Let's just agree to disagree. :)
Anyhoo - back on the track of this thread - and the "consequence" of JRiver and the so called impending "doom" of Apple Music:
1. I do not think JRiver has anything to worry about. They own the audiophile market and no amount of Apple Music is going to change that. The 20 something 'iSheep" will drift over to Apple music and those of us who take a bit more "pride of ownership" or whatever you want to call when it comes to enjoying our audio will continue to enjoy JRiver.
2. With regards to more streaming "support" - I thought that's what the WDM driver was intended to service? If one can now use an entire instance of MC as an audio driver - just direct the Spotify or RDIO or whatever streaming app you choose to that "driver" and there you go. I still fail to see the need for any more "support" or plugins more fancy than that. And given the fact that JRiver is clearly pursuing their own streaming project - any further potential for better "support" for the "other guys" has probably already been decided.
3. Finally - kstuart nailed it. Streaming gives you zero choice - you get what they feed you. For me personally - there is no room in my life for any "remaster" of any track that a streaming source decides to stick out there. Apple Music will be the same - with 100% of the tracks being goosed with dynamic range compression and a brickwall of noise pounding at you.
I will stick with MC and my pristine library of original first pressings and enjoy the best version of any given album at any given time.
And for those times that I need to check out a new release to see if it's worth the effort - I will pop over to Spotify for that.
VP
1. JRMCs marked and potential marked does not contain only "Audiophiles", and people eho are streaming are not only "isheep", you insist on this over-simplifications of the marked, it is not very helpful
2. You fail to see the need, but you are not really a part of that marked are you? You don't like streaming.
3. There is nothing wrong with not liking streaming, but a lot of people do like it, and I think many of them are customers or potential customers of jriver, this is not a poll of what is best. JRiver can support both.
-
Actually jrmc already has its build in streaming service, the performer store. If I remember correctly it even lets you virtually add song and albums to your own library so they are presented as one. It only needs a good radio and playlist feature. And of course a higher bitrate then the current 128kbs to make it useful for regular listening.
The performer store is worse than several other streaming services, is only music, and doesn't support most of the customer base, I don't see that as a particularly good solution.
-
Hi Everyone, I thought I'd make a contribution to this topic as I have quite a few streaming apps that I run/launch through theater view using the remote and I think it works passably, but there are improvements to MC that could be made to make this process easier for users (it required hours of configuring/fiddling to get this working, which I accept the average user will not want to do). All of this has been made much easier by the new WDM feature. At the outset I should say that like others I run the majority of my content locally (mostly audio) so streaming is not the main reason I use MC. The main reason I have set MC up to use these services is so that I don't have to get off the couch and go near the computer if I want to watch netflix, use spotify etc.
I currently have a number of streaming services set up to run through a browser (Netflix and various catchup TV sites). I use chrome in 'kiosk' mode for this and have set up my remote to emulate a mouse to enable navigation through Eventghost. MC minimises on launch and my stop button on the remote is configured to run taskkill on chrome, which bounces it back to MC theater view. The only issue that I have had with this setup is if I take too long to select something to watch MC will pop back up (this hasn't happened for a while, so perhaps something has changed in MC to fix this).
I also run software called AirServer in the background, which allows anyone with an iDevice to stream content (subject to any DRM issues of course).
I launch spotify and use spotify connect to control it on my phone. Again, I just press stop on the remote to kill it.
Suggestions:
- In my view I don't think J River should be making any effort to integrate with proprietary streaming services or applications. For the reasons others have given on this thread, it's just too hard to maintain compatibility and would require too much work. To the extent that there is any integration it should rely on standard windows/OS functionality.
- I think it would be possible to develop a wizard to configure launching of external applications such as browsers, the Windows 8.1/10 Netflix App (or similar Apps) using standard windows functionality. Such a wizard would need to ask a few questions to set up the button in theatre view - What is the name of the app?/What is the internet address?/Do you want the app to be fullscreen or minimised behind J River?/Do you want J River to process the audio for this App? (ie to direct playback to the WDM driver). I appreciate this would require users to use their mouse/keyboard to control the app that is launched or use eventghost like I am currently. I assume it would involve too much work to integrate basic mouse emulation into J River (ie where J River is minimised and an external application is in focus)?
- For audio only streams to the WDM driver would it be possible to show the name of the application where the audio is being streamed from (rather than just IPC)?
- Would it be possible to configure the 'jump on play' option on a per zone basis? (Currently when you launch an external application and have this set to jump to playing now it brings J River back into focus rather than continuing to display the external app. For audio I now have this set to 'do nothing' for this reason.)
Re Apple Music, I assume this will be implemented in such a way that you can 'airplay' the stream to compatible devices or run it through iTunes. I acknowledge it's possible that DRM may be implemented that prevents use of AirServer (or something similar). The other option might be to have iTunes running in the background and control that with the iDevice. I don't think that's currently possible?
These are great suggestions, these are the kind of things I am talking about, stuff that are not based on the goodwill of some random streaming company but are as general as possible and can make streaming work better with the program.
-
The performer store is worse than several other streaming services, is only music, and doesn't support most of the customer base, I don't see that as a particularly good solution.
Now that's what I call supporting JRiver on their latest venture.
VP
-
Now that's what I call supporting JRiver on their latest venture.
VP
I don't see "fake positivity" as support. Quite the opposite, it makes it easier to do wrong decisions.
-
I'm not young. Neither am I naive. I use Streaming exclusively now. Two years ago it was local playback and MC all the way. Times change, and so does the music, television and movie industry.
If nothing changes here, JRiver will loose costumers. You don't see this yet, because you keep improving much in the on field that are the most resistant to these changes (high quality local music playback). I think that JRiver will maintain a rather strong base of local playback only people for a while. Perhaps even grow the user base a while. But in time this group will probably also shrink. I would hate to see that!
It's frustrating that all the major players refuse to play nicely with other companies for alternative playback methods. I think that both would benefit from it. The only way I see that JRiver will ever get any decent ability to stream from such services is if the users them self provide plugins for it. Unfortunately, Theater view is pretty much out of the question here. As the plugin model here are rather limited. But standard view on the other hand are a viable option. I think that both of these options needs to be addressed to do something with this problem. But it won't be easy.
-
Honestly, I don't really see this changing much at all.
The stage demos for their new radio show were examples of exactly why I stopped listening to radio.
At this point I think most people know whether they want to use a streaming service or not.
For me, I just don't see the value in paying for a service which streams lossy music. I'd use a service like that if it were free - or perhaps significantly cheaper, but I'm not going to pay a subscription.
The only exception to that is that I might pay for the minimum term (typically a month) if I'm going to be hosting a party and I know that it's going to be the type of event where people will want to queue up music they want to play, rather than putting on a selection of music from my own library.
A few months back we were planning a birthday party for someone and we all collaborated to a couple of different playlists on Spotify which worked out perfectly.
It was good party music, but I only had maybe 10-20% of the songs in my own collection - and though it was fitting, there was certainly a lot that I wouldn't want to own a copy of.
At the same time, it did get me to purchase a couple of new albums as well, after really liking a few of the tracks.
All I see Apple Music doing is taking people away from Spotify, especially with that $15 family plan.
That seems like quite good value, if you don't mind paying for lossy quality. (and I know most people don't)
For the rest of us who are concerned about music quality, I think we'll continue to purchase music and use software like Media Center to manage our own libraries.
It starts to become a threat once they're streaming lossless CD-quality music at reasonable prices (i.e. not twice what everyone else is charging right now) and we can create our own "local library" from the selection, rather than browsing an infinitely large collection.
But I don't really see that happening any time soon.
What I actually think would be the best "solution" for now is setting up TuneAero (http://tuneaero.com/) (or similar) to forward AirPlay music to the WDM Driver, so that you can play to Media Center via Apple Music, Spotify, Qobuz, Tidal, or any other preferred streaming service.
After all, aren't most people that want to use streaming services doing so through their phones?
For me, Apple Music wouldn't replace Media Center as the "server" it would replace JRemote as the "remote".
-
For me, I just don't see the value in paying for a service which streams lossy music. I'd use a service like that if it were free - or perhaps significantly cheaper, but I'm not going to pay a subscription.
Lossy aside for a moment (which is a huge issue for me as well) I think a lot of folks here are also forgetting the actual "real" cost of these streaming services if one actually used them as intended. I have Spotify right now - but I used Spotify like Spotify wants me to - on my phone, iPad etc not only is one kicking out 10 or 12 bucks a month for a subscription but then you tack the data rate on top of that - I am afraid this model suddenly becomes unsustainable from a "wallet" perspective.
Here in Canada - due to the data gouging (and crappy network service) that is prevalent via the "big 3" telecoms - a few hours of Spotify here and there (per month!) on the ole iPhone and a guy could be heading into who knows how many $$$ for data overages.
And I expect this charge to grow out of control if lossless streaming becomes the norm in a few years - where it's 40 or 80 or 100MB per file. Without an unlimited data plan - I can't see how anyone will be able to listen to a streaming service daily on a mobile device (or even at home) without killing their plan in just a few days.
So in reality (for now) - one is trapped at home with these services accessing them via using the "relative" safety of my 500GB per month on the home internet plan.
May as well just fire up MC and listen to my lossless for free :)
VP
-
Aren't you forgetting that not everyone lives in canada?
However, this is not a thread about "streaming, yay or nay", it is about that streaming is getting more popular, whether people like it or not, and the consequences or lack of thereof this has on the MC-software, and eventually what can be done about it.
-
Aren't you forgetting that not everyone lives in canada?
Of course not. If data caps do not impact you - you can easily ignore this thread reply.
However, this is not a thread about "streaming, yay or nay", it is about that streaming is getting more popular, whether people like it or not, and the consequences or lack of thereof this has on the MC-software, and eventually what can be done about it.
Hmmm - I thought this thread was about "Apple Music" specifically and how it's specific introduction will impact MC - either positively or negatively.
It somehow morphed into something else.
VP
-
I'm not young. Neither am I naive. I use Streaming exclusively now. Two years ago it was local playback and MC all the way. Times change, and so does the music, television and movie industry.
If nothing changes here, JRiver will loose costumers. You don't see this yet, because you keep improving much in the on field that are the most resistant to these changes (high quality local music playback). I think that JRiver will maintain a rather strong base of local playback only people for a while. Perhaps even grow the user base a while. But in time this group will probably also shrink. I would hate to see that!
It's frustrating that all the major players refuse to play nicely with other companies for alternative playback methods. I think that both would benefit from it. The only way I see that JRiver will ever get any decent ability to stream from such services is if the users them self provide plugins for it. Unfortunately, Theater view is pretty much out of the question here. As the plugin model here are rather limited. But standard view on the other hand are a viable option. I think that both of these options needs to be addressed to do something with this problem. But it won't be easy.
MrHaugen / Carl,
You've been gloomy about JRiver's future for 4 or 5 years. Give it a rest. We're doing fine. Our sales have more than doubled in that time. We're steadily improving the software and making it available on other platforms. Sometimes other companies will do parts better, but I believe we have the best overall solution now, and that includes competitors like Apple, Microsoft, and Google.
I know quite a lot about streaming and the economics are poor.
-
We live in interesting times. I expect that Apple Music will do well, given their large ecoystem. After all, they've just invented internet radio ;)
Streaming is interesting, particularly as a vehicle for discovering new music. I do like the idea of curated stations and sharing playlists, though I still find trying to 'keep up' a bit overwhelming. I use Google Music and like it pretty well, though I might switch to Spotify because their new Wayback Machine idea is pretty cool. [of course, I was there, so why would I need it, heh??] No doubt, streaming will continue to increase, though the services aren't making much, if any, money.
At the same time, new audiophiles are being converted every day. I've been upgrading my library and have to say that I love the Hi-Res 24/96 upgrades to old favorites and have developed a new appreciation for lots of music that I just 'liked' before. I especially like the Japanese SHM's. There most certainly IS a difference in musicality.
So, many of us will enjoy both options and will continue to enjoy MC for it's excellent audio quality and organizational tools.
-
MrHaugen / Carl,
You've been gloomy about JRiver's future for 4 or 5 years. Give it a rest. We're doing fine. Our sales have more than doubled in that time. We're steadily improving the software and making it available on other platforms. Sometimes other companies will do parts better, but I believe we have the best overall solution now, and that includes competitors like Apple, Microsoft, and Google.
I know quite a lot about streaming and the economics are poor.
Economics are obviously not poor enough to prevent streaming-services having a massive increase in market share, and that is a new reality MC has to operate in. Good to hear JRiver is doing well, I hope it continues.
-
So, many of us will enjoy both options and will continue to enjoy MC for it's excellent audio quality and organizational tools.
Exactly, and I think more people will enjoy both with better tools that works with streaming services in MC, however finding the tools is not trivial.
-
MrHaugen / Carl,
You've been gloomy about JRiver's future for 4 or 5 years. Give it a rest. We're doing fine. Our sales have more than doubled in that time. We're steadily improving the software and making it available on other platforms. Sometimes other companies will do parts better, but I believe we have the best overall solution now, and that includes competitors like Apple, Microsoft, and Google.
I know quite a lot about streaming and the economics are poor.
I love your software and I love this company. That's why I'm still on the forum, even though I don't use the software any more. This is my honest opinion. My beliefs. If you can't take the advice you're given in this forums, then leave them. It might be a bit gloomy, but I think it's written in a logical and reasonable way. So I don't see why I should need to give it a rest.
The economics in streaming are poor, yes. But it's also because of rather outdated and old models in the industry. I hope this will change in time. People, and especially JRiver people are willing to pay for good quality. We know that. So, there is hope.
I know some about trends and the market my self. I spend much of my time with technology and media. I do know a bit about what's popular. I look at all options, even though I think I have found the right thing. You do well in a small niche now, with excellent audio and video playback. And I'm very happy for you. But that might change fast the day streaming services provide real lossless streaming and good quality HD streaming. That's all I'm saying. I am FAR from a negative type. Normally I look at the bright side of almost anything. Heck. When I wrecked my car the other day, I took it with a smile and thought my self lucky that I learned a lesson at a slow speed. In these threads though, there are a real concerns that's outed. And I think it's THAT important, that I choose to spend my time and throw in my two cents. Not that those cents are worth ANYTHING more than any one else'. But it's my two cents non the less.
I believe you can grow in numbers even more for a while. But there are a chance that this might turn in time. You should be very aware of that. And if the day comes, I hope you have considered all the suggestions and have a plan.
-
Economics are obviously not poor enough to prevent streaming-services having a massive increase in market share, and that is a new reality MC has to operate in.
Market share is nice if you can also make money. Pandora, arguably the leader in streaming at this time, just lost $48 million in their most recent quarter:
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AP&fstype=ii&ei=eCmBVbDvKdW6U5PGgOgE
For every dollar in sales, they lost 20 cents. I could do better than that by selling $100 bills for $85.
JRiver is a business. We must earn our way in the world. Other companies have created illusions of success, raised millions, and even gone public doing so. That's not our style.
I'm not opposed to streaming. I just don't think it's the Holy Grail.
-
MrHaugen,
You said something similar five years ago.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=53694.msg366080;topicseen#msg366080
I still like my answer just below your post. We do what we do because we love it.
-
I just don't think it's the Holy Grail.
Agreed.
Let's not forget that the very concept of "streaming" exists because record companies and artists currently allow it. If that balance is suddenly upset (and more than one big company dislikes this entire concept) - there goes your "rental" material.
The power in this equation rests with artist (Taylor Swift is a great example) and label (s). Us (as listeners) have no position whatsoever. If either decides to pull a catalog instantly - the listener is SOL.
So while the illusion of streaming seems to growing/prevalent "today - enjoy. But as Jim points out - as a long term "business" model (and currently a huge money losing one at that) especially for artists and even providers (Pandora) - I do not see a happy future unless there is a bigger revenue source to be had.
Royalty rates and other considerations WILL need to be tipped massively in favor of the artist or their material disappears. Vendors like Pandora or Spotify etc etc will be forced to raise their rates and who is going to pay for that? Most "millennials" right now - want a service of some sort but they want it for next to free.
It's an unsustainable business model - because it takes money to make quality music - and that money has to come from somewhere.
Like every other rock and roll battle - it's all about the money - and streaming can only lose money (or cost money if you are a big artist) for so long before someone pulls the plug.
VP
-
Remember that Apple is not doing this for the good of the performance industry nor for the good of the customer. It is doing it to increase their profits, lock people into their eco-system, and make it acceptable to pay over the odds for a "trendy" product while minimising what they pay other people.
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/16/apple_nopayforplays_streaming_risks_indie_boycott/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/16/apple_nopayforplays_streaming_risks_indie_boycott/)
Summary: they are not paying royalites for the 3-month free tri\l period, and the idea is to convert people from actual purchased downloads into on-demand streaming, which pay performers at a fraction of the rate.
You can either play along with this scheme to make Apple even richer at the expense of the smaller musician (I think U2 will survive...), or not.
-
See http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/16/apple_nopayforplays_streaming_risks_indie_boycott/ (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/16/apple_nopayforplays_streaming_risks_indie_boycott/)
Summary: they are not paying royalites for the 3-month free tri\l period, and the idea is to convert people from actual purchased downloads into on-demand streaming, which pay performers at a fraction of the rate.
Wow. I cannot see why any artist (big or small) would bother offering any of their music until October. Sounds like the digital shelves will be sparse at ole Apple Music at launch time.
VP
-
It depends how effective the juggernaut will be in persuading the biggies to sign up in advance. They're all like sheep falling over themselves trying to get in on the latest Apple thing right from the start and they could afford to do so. They can't really afford not to.
-
Market share is nice if you can also make money. Pandora, arguably the leader in streaming at this time, just lost $48 million in their most recent quarter:
https://www.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AP&fstype=ii&ei=eCmBVbDvKdW6U5PGgOgE
For every dollar in sales, they lost 20 cents. I could do better than that by selling $100 bills for $85.
JRiver is a business. We must earn our way in the world. Other companies have created illusions of success, raised millions, and even gone public doing so. That's not our style.
I'm not opposed to streaming. I just don't think it's the Holy Grail.
I am not saying JRiver should be a streaming company. But spotify, google, apple music, these aren't going away anytime soon, and if they are, everything indicates a new streaming company will take over, whether they make money or not. It is in this reality MC must operate, the reality where streaming is popular amoung the music-listening and video-watching public.
-
Agreed.
Let's not forget that the very concept of "streaming" exists because record companies and artists currently allow it. If that balance is suddenly upset (and more than one big company dislikes this entire concept) - there goes your "rental" material.
The power in this equation rests with artist (Taylor Swift is a great example) and label (s). Us (as listeners) have no position whatsoever. If either decides to pull a catalog instantly - the listener is SOL
The whole reason streaming started in the first place is that you can easily copy anything you want, and the record companies aren't in control anymore, they had to make a competing product that was actually convenient for people. This threat is still there. Besides there is almost an unlimited amount of music being given away for free by the artist, an its easier than ever to get (and cheaper than ever to produce).
-
The whole reason streaming started in the first place is that you can easily copy anything you want, and the record companies aren't in control anymore, they had to make a competing product that was actually convenient for people. This threat is still there. Besides there is almost an unlimited amount of music being given away for free by the artist, an its easier than ever to get (and cheaper than ever to produce).
Any record company operating today would still rather sell you a $10 CD, a $20 hi res download or $30 LP - anything that is priced higher than any streaming membership.
I do not know of too many "name" artists that give anything away. Except for that ridiculous U2 experiment last year. Indies - that's another story. But the only reason they have to give it away is because everyone on the planet now believes music should be free and no one will take a chance and actually buy a new album from a new artist.
Not sure where you got your info on how suddenly "cheap" music is to produce. Recording a commercial grade album in 2015 (for a band of any stature) remains a very expensive and labor intensive process. Only huge cash makes this possible.
I was reading a recent article on Rush - and they pretty much stated that it costs so much now (in time, talent and tech) to take a album project from start to finish that they really can't see themselves bothering with the traditional "album" anymore. Touring is really the only thing that cannot be digitally stolen yet - and represents their last bastion of earning a "rock star" sized living. (While they still can)
And since streaming doesn't help put any meaningful cash back in the artists pocket - so they can create a decent record AND doesn't represent a significant revenue stream for any label - in the end it really becoming a race to zero. Basically stream everything at the lowest possible price so no one makes any money at all. How can any artist possibly create or survive if this is where the business is headed?
"Renting" music via "streaming" - when that model clearly pays the artist nothing - cannot (and will not) last.
In the music business - cash remains king baby. And artists want as much as they can get as fast as they can get it - and good on them.
VP
-
Except for that ridiculous U2 experiment last year.
U2 didn't give anything away.
Apple paid them for the copies.
-
U2 didn't give anything away. Apple paid them for the copies.
But of course. They sure did everything they could to make it look like they were giving it away tho :)
VP
-
Twas a good deal that. U2 got a vast amount of money upfront, unconditionally, regardless of how many people wanted it or would have bought it anyway. If only that route was open to smaller artists.
-
U2 got a vast amount of money upfront, unconditionally, regardless of how many people wanted it or would have bought it anyway.
Which plays exactly to my point about streaming being unsustainable. Granted U2 managed to cut themselves a killer deal - because they are U2. But if they want/need/require that "vast" amount for just a single record - what does everyone else want?
As soon as enough midsize and super star acts start warming up their calculators and putting their numbers to their new projects - you can see how streaming services will easily be cut loose. Taylor Swift yanking her catalog from Spotify is just the start.
While I certainly am no Taylor Swift fan - you have to admit - she's a smart cookie. I am guessing she warmed up her calculator and did the math on "streaming payments" on 1989. And the math for streaming that hot album simply did not make any sense. If you want the record - go buy it.
I do not blame her one bit.
VP
-
I put thison my Facebook today, lol!
My suggestion, if you like music, is: buy the CD, buy the vinyl, from the artist's own shop if possible, and rip it for your portable device, it'll be the highest possible quality and it is yours to keep forever. Read the sleeve notes, admire the artwork on the cover and in 20 or 30 years time have many fond memories as you explore the old boxes hidden away that you've found...
-
My suggestion, if you like music, is: buy the CD, buy the vinyl, from the artist's own shop if possible, and rip it for your portable device, it'll be the highest possible quality and it is yours to keep forever. Read the sleeve notes, admire the artwork on the cover and in 20 or 30 years time have many fond memories as you explore the old boxes hidden away that you've found...
Perfect!
VP
-
Any record company operating today would still rather sell you a $10 CD, a $20 hi res download or $30 LP - anything that is priced higher than any streaming membership.
I do not know of too many "name" artists that give anything away. Except for that ridiculous U2 experiment last year. Indies - that's another story. But the only reason they have to give it away is because everyone on the planet now believes music should be free and no one will take a chance and actually buy a new album from a new artist.
Not sure where you got your info on how suddenly "cheap" music is to produce. Recording a commercial grade album in 2015 (for a band of any stature) remains a very expensive and labor intensive process. Only huge cash makes this possible.
I was reading a recent article on Rush - and they pretty much stated that it costs so much now (in time, talent and tech) to take a album project from start to finish that they really can't see themselves bothering with the traditional "album" anymore. Touring is really the only thing that cannot be digitally stolen yet - and represents their last bastion of earning a "rock star" sized living. (While they still can)
And since streaming doesn't help put any meaningful cash back in the artists pocket - so they can create a decent record AND doesn't represent a significant revenue stream for any label - in the end it really becoming a race to zero. Basically stream everything at the lowest possible price so no one makes any money at all. How can any artist possibly create or survive if this is where the business is headed?
"Renting" music via "streaming" - when that model clearly pays the artist nothing - cannot (and will not) last.
In the music business - cash remains king baby. And artists want as much as they can get as fast as they can get it - and good on them.
VP
So? I am sure they would like even more that a single song costs 100 dollars, but thats not the reality they live in.
Again, so? Indies give away tens of thousands of albums, a lot of high quality music is free, whatever the reason. This changes the marketplace.
It's cheaper than ever to get good equipment for making an album.
There is music available, and more music beeing produced than ever before, despite the doom and gloom predictions, its obviously possible to produce music without it being a high paid full time job, and people have done this at all times in history. There is no actual data supporting the prediction that it is not sustainable when you see the actual amount of music being produces, instead of just believing that only people who get rich by it will bother to produce music.
-
There is no actual data supporting the prediction that it is not sustainable when you see the actual amount of music being produces, instead of just believing that only people who get rich by it will bother to produce music.
The only fact on sustainability that really matters from a business perspective is that none of these "streaming" services have ever earned a nickel in profit. And given their current business model - none likely ever will.
You can only sustain that for so long until the well runs dry. And it always does.
VP
-
I am not saying JRiver should be a streaming company. But spotify, google, apple music, these aren't going away anytime soon, and if they are, everything indicates a new streaming company will take over, whether they make money or not. It is in this reality MC must operate, the reality where streaming is popular amoung the music-listening and video-watching public.
This is why I think the solution is to get the audio from these streaming apps into Media Center, rather than JRiver building in custom support for each service.
Developing custom support for individual streaming services seems to be an increasingly bad idea from a business perspective unless you're a company the scale of Sonos, as there seems to be one or two new services launching every year, these streaming companies often seem to update/change their APIs in ways that breaks the service every few months, requiring additional work, and most companies seem to cut off their APIs after a year or two if they get big enough to not have gone out of business by then.
With iOS it seems relatively easy to get the audio from each service's app into Media Center, as you can stream AirPlay to a PC-based receiver and forward the audio to MC via the WDM Driver.
I don't know if Android has that capability built in though, or what standard they're using for that - if any.
The only thing which seems to complicate matters there, is being able to route the WDM input to your desired speaker output easily.
The WDM driver has a few issues right now such as stalling (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=97916.0), and there's no convenient way I can see to direct WDM Audio to a specific zone.
To do that would probably require JRiver to develop their own AirPlay receiver, so that each Zone shows up as a unique AirPlay device - and that's something they have said won't be happening.
The next best thing would be an easy way to quickly route WDM Audio to a zone of your choice - which I guess could perhaps be done by playing WDM Audio to its own zone, and then linking that to your desired output on-the-fly, but that means you are jumping between apps (the streaming app and JRemote) which quickly becomes a nuisance if it's something you are going to be doing a lot.
-
The only fact on sustainability that really matters from a business perspective is that none of these "streaming" services have ever earned a nickel in profit. And given their current business model - none likely ever will.
You can only sustain that for so long until the well runs dry. And it always does.
VP
Netflix makes money right? And as a customer, the business perspective isn't the important part, it is whats being created that is the important part. Music streaming makes little money today due to the record companies having to big of a cut. We will see how it all ends, I find it unlikely it will end in the death of music streaming.
-
This is why I think the solution is to get the audio from these streaming apps into Media Center, rather than JRiver building in custom support for each service.
Developing custom support for individual streaming services seems to be an increasingly bad idea from a business perspective unless you're a company the scale of Sonos, as there seems to be one or two new services launching every year, these streaming companies often seem to update/change their APIs in ways that breaks the service every few months, requiring additional work, and most companies seem to cut off their APIs after a year or two if they get big enough to not have gone out of business by then.
With iOS it seems relatively easy to get the audio from each service's app into Media Center, as you can stream AirPlay to a PC-based receiver and forward the audio to MC via the WDM Driver.
I don't know if Android has that capability built in though, or what standard they're using for that - if any.
The only thing which seems to complicate matters there, is being able to route the WDM input to your desired speaker output easily.
The WDM driver has a few issues right now such as stalling (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=97916.0), and there's no convenient way I can see to direct WDM Audio to a specific zone.
To do that would probably require JRiver to develop their own AirPlay receiver, so that each Zone shows up as a unique AirPlay device - and that's something they have said won't be happening.
The next best thing would be an easy way to quickly route WDM Audio to a zone of your choice - which I guess could perhaps be done by playing WDM Audio to its own zone, and then linking that to your desired output on-the-fly, but that means you are jumping between apps (the streaming app and JRemote) which quickly becomes a nuisance if it's something you are going to be doing a lot.
No, I don't think custom support is the best route, but maybe making it easier (if possible or necessary) for members to create plugins. And having more systems in place for "generalized communications" towards the streaming services, like the WDM driver that can be used for most services, maybe there is possibilities to have a more general information extraction that is not only audio, but works with many services.
-
My 2 penneth to a fascinating debate is more around the hardware side
I live in South Africa and our data costs are simply ridiculous if you buy capped bundles, that would make streaming a very expensive option. As it is I have a uncapped ADSL line but occasionally my provider sees fit to zap if I go a bit heavy with the usage . The debate rages with them on various forums over what defines uncapped (bit like bottomless coffee !) but all the same streaming music 8 hrs a day would probably put me in their crosshairs even at 128 or 320 let alone Hi Res Streams.
I think the industry is more likely to head towards 24/96 (or higher) as a standard going forward and unless streaming services can match this and data bandwidth can withstand it streaming will more likely be as someone above said "Internet Radio", I gave up transistor radios some years back. I suppose I am a music "Snob" but Hi Fi and all its trappings have been a big part of my life for the last 45 years.
From a more hardware point of view I looked very seriously at a Network Streamer as a means of playing music for "Hi Fi" . I decided against eventually for several reasons
The MAIN one is none of the devices provide (or sell) a Remote App anything vaguely approaching JRemote. The Cambridge Audio was quite good but doesn't even allow a split between Classical and Rock !! Some of the other simply provide a set of thumbnails of Albums without even the simplest navigational aids , not so good when you have 2000 + albums to filter...
The other biggy was the built in DAC side of it giving no choice in how you build your system, not to mention the duplication of DACs . Someone should produce the player without DAC but that's really just a PC anyway.
The final decision was to stick with an HTPC and JRiver.
-
Netflix makes money right?
Not really:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/3073386-netflix-street-applauds-disastrous-financial-results
http://www.businessinsider.com/netflix-promises-profitability-in-2017-2015-1
They are, like almost all of the streaming companies out there, burning revenue at ever increasing rates (and heavily in debt, and borrowing more) to maintain subscriber growth numbers. Overall, they've never turned a profit globally (when you include all obligations and spending). They've kept growth reasonably high (though sliding), which keeps the street happy, and props up their stock price, but at what cost?
Long-term profitability is absolutely not a given. Amazon seems to be allowed to go on forever making almost nothing, but I don't know that the same thing will be true of Netflix and the others.
They're now "promising" they will make "real" profits in 2017 (for the first time). We'll see.
-
MrHaugen,
You said something similar five years ago.
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=53694.msg366080;topicseen#msg366080
I still like my answer just below your post. We do what we do because we love it.
I really like that answer as well! I suspect that many feel the same way of JRiver and MC. Most have been MUCH less involved as you guys of course, but still. As I've pointed out before, you've obviously done a heck of a lot of things right to get to where you are today. Even though I disagree on a very few decisions, you all have my respect.
Regarding me saying something similar previously, I'm sure your right about that. However, I don't think that post give any doomsday forecast about JRiver and audio streaming services specifically? I mentioned that the trend goes toward music, video and images anytime anywhere. And I believe I was spot on in that case. Most services and apps today have some sort of online, streaming and connectivity services. Quite a few only have this.
Yes, I have said similar things before. I'm pretty certain of that. And I still stand by those beliefs. Not many can look into the future. Neither can I! So my time perspective can be off. I can even be totally wrong! It happens.
Streaming services might one day provide lossless streaming and good quality playback. And no matter how unprofitable the streaming services are, you might be in trouble if/when that happens. It can't really be a question; That from a normal music listeners perspective it's great to have access to most of the music with a click of a button, and all for just a few dollars a month.
This is not about you making money on streaming though. I don't think any here suggests that? But supporting it, that's another matter.
-
Netflix makes money right?
Netflix makes nothing. Just look up any recent financial statement.
And as a customer, the business perspective isn't the important part, it is whats being created that is the important part. Music streaming makes little money today due to the record companies having to big of a cut. We will see how it all ends, I find it unlikely it will end in the death of music streaming.
To me as a customer - I care about is whether or not the thing I am purchasing will last and if it has value for my dollar. Like Netflix for example - I do not see any "value" whatsoever in Netflix when I scroll thru thousands of boring indie movies I would never watch - I see value as being able to dial up the Avengers (Or Breaking Bad or Mad Men) when the mood strikes. If a streaming service can offer that value - when I want it - then it's golden. If not - I am off to the next thing.
And the fact the record companies require a big cut is exactly to my point. If Bono (or Pink Floyd or Madonna or Taylor Swift) wants more streaming revenue - the record company will inform the streamers of this request. If they refuse to pay it - they will (at some point) most likely lose the catalog (Swift).
This (and certain impending bankruptcy due a certain inability to "sell" enough subscriptions) will be the two deciding factors long term for any streaming provider.
VP
-
Netflix makes nothing. Just look up any recent financial statement.
To me as a customer - I care about is whether or not the thing I am purchasing will last and if it has value for my dollar. Like Netflix for example - I do not see any "value" whatsoever in Netflix when I scroll thru thousands of boring indie movies I would never watch - I see value as being able to dial up the Avengers (Or Breaking Bad or Mad Men) when the mood strikes. If a streaming service can offer that value - when I want it - then it's golden. If not - I am off to the next thing.
And the fact the record companies require a big cut is exactly to my point. If Bono (or Pink Floyd or Madonna or Taylor Swift) wants more streaming revenue - the record company will inform the streamers of this request. If they refuse to pay it - they will (at some point) most likely lose the catalog (Swift).
This (and certain impending bankruptcy due a certain inability to "sell" enough subscriptions) will be the two deciding factors long term for any streaming provider.
VP
Fine, but a lot of other customers likes what streaming has to offer, that's the point, streaming is popular among customers that consume culture, the people MC is selling too.
If streaming disappears, we will just be back to people using the easiest option, that is downloading a copy, and the record companies will lose out. The record companies are short sighted, but I don't think they are that short-sighted.
-
If streaming disappear, we will just be back to people using the easiest option, that is downloading a copy, and the record companies will loose out. The record companies are short sighted, but I don't think they are that short-sighted.
While the record companies were complete idiots in the late 90's - I do not think the record companies or today are short sighted when it comes to streaming. They simply walk in, put their catalog on the table and tell Spotify - "If you want it - give us 80% of all your revenue" - if not - have fun with no content. And of course Spotify (and all the others) cut the same kind of deal and are now watching the losses pile up with breakneck pace while the profit remains nil.
The big record companies (unless you are a Tom Petty or Metallica and own your own masters) control this entire pie. Whether or not the streaming vendor survives is of little consequence. Warners or Universal or whoever - could care less if Spotify goes under as long as they get their cut. They will hang in for their 70-80% until financial reality sets in (and it will) at some point in the future.
Then the record companies will do what they always do - peddle their catalogs to the next bidder (or "next big thing") and try to resell it all back to us again :)
I just read a piece on Vivendi (Universal parent) who are dead set on getting rid of any concept of "freemium" with respect to vendors streaming their stuff. If that happens - Spotify is doomed along with many others.
Ironically - Apple Music might be the only one left standing since there is no "free" option over there.
VP
-
Doesn't matter, streaming will still be popular, even if spotify and all the others dies, and apple is the only one left, because the record companies will make substantially less if no good streaming service exists.
-
Doesn't matter, streaming will still be popular, even if spotify and all the others dies, and apple is the only one left, because the record companies will make substantially less if no good streaming service exists.
Logically - it can only survive (and be popular) if people pay for it. So far that's not happening near fast enough.
I guess we shall see...
VP
-
If it was purely up to myself than I would have continued with JRiver and my music stored locally. But I have kids...
And they wan't access to their spotify playlist in all the different zones around the house, which again means I have to ditch my JRiver setup... :(
I think streaming is the future, and without incorporating a solution that enables streaming from Apple/Spotify, JRiver will slowly loose customers.
Downsides with streaming? Not really... Quality have been rised as an issue, but that is simply wrong, and e.g. Tidal offers CD-quality lossless music streams. Limited internet access? All of the providers offers a "make available offline" option. Play a song that you have already played before, and it will be played from your harddrive...
I would love to see a solution enabling streaming through JRiver, but reading the comments in this thread, I do not really see it happening...
-
JRiver not synching with iPhone and lack of JRemote "make available offline" solution made me left JRiver to spotify. And now that I have tried apple music, I prefer it since it's very integrated with iOS and iCloud makes it available on my ipad and itunes on mac/win. I stopped lying to myself: 256kbps and flac files sound the same to me. flac files only give me peace of mind. nothing else.
-
I moved to roon. It's Tidal integration is spectacular, funny since Tidal is supposedly unwilling to cooperate.
-
Apple DRM:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=98478.0