This week, Lauren Sherman wrote an article for Elle explaining why she recommends getting an Apple Watch. (And yes, this is the first time that I’ve linked to an article in Elle on iPhone J.D.) I particularly enjoyed this line: “The Apple Watch represents the future, so why not start enjoying the future now?” I enjoy using my Apple Watch because of what it can already do today, but it is obvious that this current generation of hardware and software is just a tease of what is to come in the future. For some, this is a reason to wait for the next model, and I totally understand that. The 2.0 version of anything will be better than the 1.0 version. Of course, using that logic, you would wait for the 3.0, then the 4.0, etc. Suffice it to say that as much as I enjoy using my Apple Watch today, it is also fun getting what seems like a sneak peak of the future. And now, the news of note from the past week:
- New York attorney Nicole Black discusses some of her new favorite iPhone apps in an article for The Daily Record.
- Kentucky attorney Hiram Ely tells me that he used to enjoy using a dual dock when he and his wife both used iPhones with 30 pin connectors, but he has been having trouble finding a good dual dock that works with iPhones with Lightning connectors. And I don’t think that I have seen one either, something that charges to iPhones side-by-side. If you have any recommendations, please post a comment to this post.
- California attorney David Sparks reports that the Electronic Frontier Foundation has rated Apple high on protecting user privacy.
- Similarly, Walt Mossberg of re/code explains how important user privacy is to Apple.
- Brent Zaniewski of iMore discusses the five smart hubs on the market that you can use with HomeKit, which means that you can control lights and other items in your house using your iPhone and Apple Watch. I’m currently having very good results with the Lutron Caseta Wireless Smart Bridge, and I plan to write a post on it soon.
- Zachary Seward of Quartz discusses how messaging apps will get better in iOS 9.
- Jared Newman of Macworld discusses six improvements in iOS 9.
- Dan Moren of Six Colors discusses improvements to the awesome Dark Sky app.
- Roger Fingas of AppleInsider reports that you can now reserve and pick up an Apple Watch directly from an Apple Store, and shows of the special bags that Apple is using for an Apple Watch purchased in a store.
- One of the new features being added to the Apple Watch in a software update later this year is support for third party complications. I think that this is huge. So does Macworld contributor Michael Simon, who explains that it is an even bigger deal than native watch apps. I agree.
- Jim Dalrymple of The Loop explains in two posts (1, 2) how he used an iPhone app, and more recently his Apple Watch, to lose 40 pounds. His first post also serves as an overall review of the Apple Watch.
- Leah Yamshon of Macworld explains the ins and outs of Apple’s new streaming music service that goes live at the end of this month.
- Bryan Wolfe of AppAdvice explains the difference between iTunes Match and Apple’s new music service. I’m still waiting to learn whether Apple Music subscribers would have any reason to also subscribe to iTunes Match. It doesn’t seem to me that there would be any reason to pay for both, but I wish Apple would clarify this.
- And finally, I came across this picture posted by Simon Sugar on Twitter, and it made me smile. As he describes the picture: “How to sell a chalkboard. #marketing.”
How to sell a chalkboard #marketing pic.twitter.com/BhpWR4AKaR
— Simon Sugar (@Amscreen_Simon) June 14, 2015
One reason to continue your iTunes Match subscription while also subscribing to Apple Music or Spotify is if your iTunes Match includes lots of music that is not otherwise available on the iTunes Store (or Apple Music/Spotify).
I have a very large collection of music that includes rips of CDs produced from 1984 to the advent of iTunes that are not available digitally. In fact, when I subscribed to iTunes Match, about a quarter of the 25K songs in my library (the limit allowed by Apple) were “songs” not available on the iTunes Store. (Any tracks available on iTunes are not uploaded since Apple serves them to you from their cloud.) The upload took 3 months.
If I relinquish my iTunes Match subscription, those three months will have been wasted which is why I’ll probably do both iTunes Match and either Apple Music or my current Spotify account.
But I thought that Apple Music does the same thing. The example I’ve heard — the Beatles are not on Apple Music (or any streaming music service). But if you already have their songs in your iTunes collection, I thought that they would be uploaded to Apple Music and would play along with other songs … just like iTunes Match.
Again, I hope that Apple clarifies all of this.
-Jeff
Right but you can buy the Beatles music on iTunes so when they see it in your library, I don’t think Apple uploads it to Apple Music. They just note that you own it and serve it back to you when you request it.
I’m talking about music you can’t buy on iTunes but that you can upload to iTunes Match as part of your 25k track limit.
You’re right, this needs to be clarified.
Joe
In Serenity Caldwell’s recent Apple Music FAQ (http://www.imore.com/apple-music-faq), she says that with Apple Music you have access to “your entire purchased and ripped library, uploaded to iCloud”. So I guess I can give up my iTunes Match subscription once I sign up for Apple Music.
JM
Joe — that’s what I’m hearing too. Apple VP Eddy Cue also sent a tweet this weekend that seems to confirm this:
https://twitter.com/cue/status/614350132918644736
-Jeff