Beats Music launches
beatsmusic.comI've been using this for the last 4 or 5 hours. I'm not in the US but have a dormant US iTunes Account so I was able to download it through that.
Design: Really slick. I like the Rdio app but recently it's been getting a bit confusing. I've always hated the Spotify app even though I was a paying customer since it first arrived in the UK. The Beats app admittedly has a lot going on but I found it pretty easy to navigate and the artist page layout is quite nice.
Features: The artist page actually recommends playlists to help you get introduced to a new artist or the 'deep cuts' of an artist you already know which I find quite nice.
Creating playlists is simple and unlike Spotify you can set a cover image and a description.
The sentence based playlist feature (mad libs for music) works ok. It hasn't thrown up anything completely wrong and I expect it'll get better over time.
The home page is kind of the best part of the app. It presents you with albums and playlists you might like and seems pretty good at recommending stuff.
Overall I think they have two things up on everyone else: design and playlists. On Spotify and Rdio finding good playlists is difficult. Spotify has been getting better at this but it isn't great yet. Beats seems to have spent a lot of time crafting A LOT of really great playlists and they seem to be where I'm spending most of my time. The human curation thing seems to have worked.
At this point it's hard to tell who'll come out ahead. Beats is ad-free but subscription only. If they can convince people to pay for it (and I think they might be able to through brand power/marketing) I think it'll be a good thing for artists and might take away some of the stigma streaming music services have with them. I think I'm going to continue using it as my main service but at the moment I don't know how they will charge for it. It comes with a 7 day free trial. Currently it's pretty easy to get around the US only limitations but if their payment system restricts sales to US addresses I won't be able to use it until it expands to the UK.
>> "Overall I think they have two things up on everyone else: design and playlists. On Spotify and Rdio finding good playlists is difficult. Spotify has been getting better at this but it isn't great yet. Beats seems to have spent a lot of time crafting A LOT of really great playlists and they seem to be where I'm spending most of my time. The human curation thing seems to have worked."
Totally agree. Beats has taken the best of both of Rdio and Spotify, and along with the human curation, built a pretty solid product.
The web interface leaves a lot to be desired at this point, but looking forward to seeing what they come up with here.
Totally agree, the website is lacking compared with the app. I guess launching solid apps on three separate platforms in the same week meant dedicating fewer engineers to the website, hopefully it'll improve quickly. I do most of my listening on my laptop and having to listen on my phone is quite annoying as I'm using it for dev purposes all day.
Not a fan of Beats. Tried a pair of their headphones in a shop and they sounded terrible. Build quality was flimsy as well. I think the only new thing they bring into the market is style, and that's not enough for longevity imo.
This new service, $10 a month. Not quite sure what it offers over Spotify. Anyway, past experience with their product means I'm just not going to be interested in this.
You and I might have quickly picked up on the fact that Beats headphones are trash, but the vast majority of consumers have no idea. I see Beats everywhere these days. A lot of seemingly intelligent people I know are using Beats.
And you can't even tell them that Beats sucks, as I learned the hard way. It's not socially acceptable to inform someone that they wasted several hundred dollars, especially when they identify with the brand so closely.
You assume that sound quality is the only thing that matters in a pair of headphones. A lot of people care more about how they look and the branding then the sound, which is totally fine. I work in a small tech store and I've convinced people to buy better headphones to have them come back a few days later and exchanging them for Beats. Yes, they sound horrible, but different people have different needs and desires. It's not wasted money if they enjoy them, which I believe to a large part people do. Who are we to tell people they should buy headphones they don't want?
Branding and design is a legitimate category for a company to compete in and the people behind the headphones are certainly successful in it. They recognized that most people don't really care how they sound because the vast majority of people are not audiophiles and just want to look cool.
I have heard they are very bass heavy which is what most people like. They could not care less about nuance and realism in music. Bose speakers proved that.
If the majority of consumers are using headphones that are a 1 to 3 on a 10 point scale and beats are, for example, a 4 or 5, then they're better for most consumers. Are they as good as some ATH-M150s? No...but the market is saturated and it's difficult for the consumer to understand what's good and what's not. Enter the marketing/brand dollar and consumers will pick what they hear about plus what sounds better than what they're used to.
> If the majority of consumers are using headphones that are a 1 to 3 on a 10 point scale and beats are, for example, a 4 or 5, then they're better for most consumers.
You're not factoring in price. Beats are very expensive for mediocre quality sound. Those headphones that are a 1 to 3 (where Beats is 4 or 5) are only 1/10th the price of Beats. And for 1/3rd the price of Beats, you can get headphones that are a 7 or 8.
For Beats' target market, they don't factor in price either.
When I personally go to buy stuff, price is third or fourth down on my list of concerns.
I've bought two pairs of over-the-ear headphones in the past few months, and sent them both back. I was shopping on price/value, but the headphones I was getting were way too loud for an office environment.
For whatever reason, whenever I'm looking for decent headphones, nobody indicates whether I'll be broadcasting what I'm listening to to my workmates or not. Not the manufacturer, not the reviewers. Giant pain in the ass. It might not be long before I'd be willing to shell out the cash for Beats just to not have to fuck with it anymore.
> For Beats' target market, they don't factor in price either.
Then they should be buying from good brands - for $300, you can get a 9 or 10.
> For whatever reason, whenever I'm looking for decent headphones, nobody indicates whether I'll be broadcasting what I'm listening to to my workmates or not.
Of course they do, you're just not familiar with the terminology. What you're looking for is circumaural (around the ear) headphones, rather than supraaural (on the ear) headphones. I would recommend the Sennheiser HD-280 PRO: http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD-280-Pro-Headphones/dp/B0...
I've had a pair for several years, and they still sound great.
> It might not be long before I'd be willing to shell out the cash for Beats just to not have to fuck with it anymore.
Getting Beats isn't going to fix your problem, as they are well known for noise-leaking.
Leaking's fine. Blaring out the other side of the ear cups isn't. I don't understand it, if I wanted everyone to hear my music, I'd just use speakers. What the hell is the point?
But thanks for the recommendation. I'll be sure to grab those.
Sennheiser HD280 Pro headphones are pretty good at isolating yourself from the outside, and the outside from you. Definitely sound different than a set of open ear headphones though. Just a recommendation. I have a pair and they're pretty solid. They can grip your head tightly though depending on your head size, but I haven't found them uncomfortable.
http://www.amazon.com/Sennheiser-HD-280-Pro-Headphones/dp/B0...
Were you ordering closed over ears? If not, try sticking to those, and generally ones that reviewers say offer good isolation (in-ears like Shures are great for this).
If you've never tried good headphones you can never tell what bad headphones are. Most people have never tried good headphones.
I've been giving it a run through this morning. Haven't gotten too far in, but I'd already say Spotify and Rdio have some serious competition on their hands.
The curation is where this service really excels, also the UI is pretty tight.
I've heard bad things about the headphones, so never tried them.
I own a pair (got them as a present) and didn't sell them just to make people listen to them and compare them to my other headphones (I'm not joking). I hate them (because of the false marketing first, and the low quality product second) and also most people realize at the 10th second of the music that they're not good at all. But for some, in a strange way, they sound excellent. I just don't get it. Maybe humans developed two different hearing mechanisms and we're still not aware of our differences =)
Many people think more bass == better sound. Go figure.
Many people listen almost exclusively to bass heavy music, which does turn out sounding 'better' compared to more balanced headphones.
Beats are EQ'd to increase the volume of the high and low end frequencies.
These frequencies sound good to human ears.
So, when someone compares Beats to non-Beats, they hear that those frequencies are louder and the very fact that there is a noticeable difference is enough to create the illusion in some gullible people that Beats 'sound better'
Of course, in the long run, they don't.
I bought a nice, high quality pair of headphones and was disappointed to find that sound was quite 'crisp'. Fortunately there's an equaliser in the Spotify app... I cranked up the lower and highest end frequencies, and now Meshuggah sounds nice and crunchy again.
I'm not defending Beats at all, but I'll defend that low frequency / high frequency setup all day. Not everyone listens to classical.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contours
The problem is, a lot of modern music has this same curve (the "smile") heavily applied to it already, so it can disintegrate into a mess quite quickly.
>> "Beats are EQ'd to increase the volume of the high and low end frequencies."
It depends which model you buy. Their 'Pro' model is marketed towards sound engineers so I doubt they mess with the EQ on those. They also claim they are "The Headphones Used To Mix In Every Major Studio." which I seriously doubt. AFAIK it's always recommended to mix with monitors, not headphones.
They are not marketed to engineers. They are marketed to people who think they need headphones as good as those used by engineers.
In reality of course, engineers typically use headphones that sound as boring and "lifeless" as possible, for obvious reasons.
Ironically, they often also buy (relatively) cheap ones, as they get used to destruction.
as a former sound engineer and tiny record label owner. They mix pop music and high bass music for scooped out eq, headphones and systems.
I can hardly believe that people buy them at all, let alone pay so much. I have to give them credit for the marketing, but still- my $50 refurb Sony MDR-V6 sound much better. Maybe if we paint decent headphones blue/red/green/pink we can resell them for $300? Anyone know if the beats products are better or worse since their deal with Monster Cable ended?
How do you know that you're not fooling yourself with the low price you paid, via the same mechanism beats fans are fooled by the high price?
They have(had?) a microphone like the apple earbuds. A couple years ago, being able to take a call was pretty important. I couldn't find any similar headphones with the integrated mic, so those are what i got.
Weren't Senn momentums available at that time?
Whenever a brand like Beats lends their name to or builds a service like this with a much hyped press launch I feel like it's almost always doomed. I tried my account this morning and that's probably the end. It's just another streaming radio app, nothing at all new. Their entire value claim is based around the idea that not just an algorithm is picking the music, humans are involved too. That's great, who cares? Humans are already involved for the other radio apps, maybe not special "music experts" but direct plays on Spotify are certainly factored into their radio algorithm. In fact it's more democratized that way. This needed to be magnitudes better than Pandora, Spotify radio and iTunes Radio to get anyone to care once the press goes away, it does not appear that is the case. I will be impressed if anyone is still talking about this in 3 months.
>> "Their entire value claim is based around the idea that not just an algorithm is picking the music, humans are involved too. That's great, who cares?"
I care if they can produce better playlists that way. As a Spotify user for many years I can honestly say that after just a few hours with Beats I find the playlists are a lot better and a lot easier to find. They are recommend loads to me and most are ones I like.
My favourite thing is that if I visit an artist page and I haven't listened to them before it has an 'Intro to [artist name]" playlist. If I do know the artist it also has a 'Deep cuts' playlist. I've also seen '[Artist name]: influences' playlists which are an interesting idea. NB: I doubt they have these playlists for every artist but they've been there on most I've searched so far.
I don't get any of that on Spotify. Most of the playlists I get recommended on Spotify are "Hangover songs", "Workout mix", "Christmas tunes" etc. etc. They are nice but a lot less useful.
Here's the thing though, they can bundle a free trial period (longer than the default on the website) with every pair of Beats they sell, and they will probably get enough adoption to keep going in the long run.
I forget the stats, but Beats headphones have a ridiculous market share...
I don't disagree with that. The brand is huge and will find a way to at least keep the lights on here but how many people are really going to decide to spend their $9.99 a month on this? Most people won't even pay Spotify $9.99 a month for radio and a virtually unlimited music library since oh yea it's all also available for free.
The point is that democracy is not always good if you want to be exposed to new and interesting things. A million people will listen to Justin Beiber, or Katy Perry, but how does a new/obscure band get traction? It used to be radio spins, but radio is a dying medium. Beats is trying to give you something like your favourite local radio station, with an interesting mix of old favourites and new tracks that haven't reached a critical mass of listeners on other services.
In other words, if you only use people's listening preferences, you can only recommend established tracks well. Adding an editorial component lets you get ahead of the curve.
That's the purpose of the 'hot' algorithms that you get in a lot of ranking sites. In order to keep new content rising to the top, you can build algorithms that prioritise the rate of increase as well. Even weight the listens of users who historically listened to successful tracks before they got popular ('trendsetters' etc.).
So there are other alternatives to human curation when it comes to getting ahead of the curve.
Agree..I am skeptical given that it is basically an industry play...The guys behind it are music industry veterans (Dre et al) and bad habits die hard.
Unless they show that they actually know what they are doing and not just trying to use technology to gain more control over music consumers, I'll have to wait this one out.
I am (was?) a fairly happy MOG subscriber. Some thoughts:
1. No way to transfer my MOG playlists and favorite bands/songs? That sucks.
2. Tried to sign in through the AT&T family plan for 90-day free trial. Got a text with a code, which AT&T says was accepted, and Beats says was not. ???
3. No web-only option for $5/month. I suppose that was too much to hope for.
4. No information about how the 5-person family plan works. Do we share one login (and favorite bands)? I hope not; we have very different tastes.
This service seems really half-baked. Might end up being good, but for the moment is behind were MOG was, which is pretty bad. MOG was basically a zombie service for the last few months, as they obviously had all their attention focused on this launch. The web interface never had basic stuff like their featured playlists.
Here's to hoping they get it all ironed out.
The AT&T trial ($15/mo) .. once you complete the trial, do you begin paying Beats? Or AT&T? Is it included on your data plan, or does it supersede? This whole thing strikes me as ... shady. But everything about the Beats brand strikes me as shady.
I don't understand the text on the website. Is it some kind of attempt to look funny? " home.whatever.p", "HOME.ELEGANT-AND-FUN.LI3.HEADING"... ?! Or is the website completely busted right now?
Edit: What it looks like to me and everyone I asked to have a look. Big bug. Can't even see the pricing. http://imgur.com/ydTIPso
Google Search has an amusing result as well... http://imgur.com/2ycZr0X
Seems like you are missing localization and you see the keys for the text.
EDIT: pricing MONTHLY $9.99 YEARLY $119.88
I like the big "HOME.HERO.HEADING" at the top. And "HOME.WHATEVER.HEADING" is quite amusing...
It's busted in firefox here, works in chrome.
Eh, weird. Here, it's busted in chrome and works in FF.
Thanks for telling me that you are not available in my country AFTER I register....
yeah, quite misleading:
AVAILABLE EVERYWHERE
and then:
HOLD UP. BEATS MUSIC IS NOT YET AVAILABLE IN YOUR COUNTRY.
very annoying.
By "everywhere" it is meant "only in the United States".
The biggest issue I have with Beats (or any streaming music service for that matter) is that it's just curating existing music. Even their tagline includes the word "curating." This goes to the heart of what's wrong with the entire music industry. It seems that the industry is happy with keeping things the way they are instead of finding ways to be prolific. Curating what we already have is not going to push the music industry forward. Hopefully Beats is different than other music services and actually pays the bands. If not, who gives a shit about another service trying to separate us from our money?
It looks like they are basically copying Songza's concierge model (which may not be original itself but it's a pretty popular implementation of that idea)..
This looks to me more like an app designer/developer company's showcase than a music service (sorry for being negative, i might still have the monday feeling)
What are the advantages I will gain if I switch from Spotify?
- The answer seems to be the nice layout!
What are the disadvantages?
- Spotify gives me limitless account (with ads) for free, this one not.
- Spotify is even available as a web app,and desktop client which i use most. This one???
- "The item you've requested is not currently available in the Swedish Store, but it is available in the U.S. Store."
I am not trying to be disrespectful to what these guys had done. It looks beautiful.
Music industry is really really tricking area when it comes to application development. Even Spotify had hard times to make its service up and running for years.
I might be totally wrong. That's why if you believe in something, just don't mind negative people. keep going!
>> "- Spotify gives me limitless account (with ads) for free, this one not."
I'm happy about this. Maybe they can convince people music is worth paying money for and instead of wasting time selling ads they can spend time and money building a good product.
>> "- Spotify is even available as a web app,and desktop client which i use most. This one???"
It's available on Android, iOs, Windows Phone AND the web at http://listen.beatsmusic.com
>> - "The item you've requested is not currently available in the Swedish Store, but it is available in the U.S. Store."
Like most music/video services it's launching in one location (US) and planning to expand to others soon. e.g. iTunes Radio is still US only. Spotify took years to branch out of Europe.
>> What are the advantages I will gain if I switch from Spotify?
After a few hours of use the main benefit seems to be playlists. I've described how they work in another post on this thread so won't repeat but they seem infinitely more useful to me on this than playlists on Spotify (which I've been using for around 5 years).
Reasonable arguments I have to agree except the first one.
Spotify takes my time which is valuable to me instead of my money for the free version, and I like listening those ads about the new released albums, not really annoying. So "music is worth paying money" and they are getting money from those ads because Spotify users listen them. Like youtube, but there you don't earn anything though :)
Other than that, It is always good to have competitors and i wish them good luck :)
Selection, UI, and curation/recommendation all are very good. I hope this creates some competition for Spotify, because I think they need a fire lit under their product plans. (It's 2014 and I still can't save a collection of music outside of playlists)
But is it just me, or can you not fast forward / seek in Beats Music?
You have to tap the "now playing tray", then there is a circular progress bar which you must track your finger around. It's incredibly easy to move from 99% to 1%...especially problematic when the circle turns into a volume slider.
Nice website, recommendation seems kinda cool, but I'm sure like most people here, I don't see this going too far.
>That’s why you’ll never hear an ad on Beats Music.
Yeah, that's not lasting.
Seems that I can't 'shuffle' play my own library by genre (or 'mood'). Which makes Beats about the thousandth company to not offer this (common sense?) option. I can do this with Google Play Music (thankfully). Personally, there are plenty of ways to get 'curated' music...make it easy for me to play what I want.
Also, spent about 15 minutes on their site and still couldn't find the web player...maybe launch day issue?
Edit: found listen.beatsmusic.com (thanks to a comment here)
So is this just basically MOG with a new name? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOG_%28online_music%29
Why would I like to listen to curated music !?
Problem is: I like some harcore, some jazz, some classical, some punk. Taste is very personal. That's why I like to curate my own music.
To branch out without getting completely lost, assuming that isn't what you want.
their tagline/value statement is weaksauce: "A NEW MUSIC SERVICE CURATED BY PEOPLE WHO BELIEVE MUSIC IS EMOTION AND LIFE." who gives a shit?
Beats me.
"I'm at work and feel like saving the world with your ex to old school dance" gives me some pretty funky jams. I am happy. Thanks Reznor!
Hmmm. I reckon I'm quite good at choosing the music I want to listen to. Not sure I want to pay some one (or a service) to select music for me.
If the tracks are more than 5-10 cents a piece, what's advantage over what I've been spoiled to (gomusicnow, and now iomoio)?
I bet every song is equalized with extra bass.
Service is down right now, just returning standard JSON errors.
Not available in India. Rats.