Comments on: Rhapsody iPhone app to get offline playback, still isn’t Spotify

By: Tony

Tony — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 13:20:40 +0000

I took my iPhone and hooked it up to the “audio in” jack in my car stereo. Music sounded tinny as crap and about as high quality as youtube videos on my phone.

Heck it took me 5 times trying to even get the thing functioning. Its a shame, my trial period did nothing but steer me away…i was REALLY excited for this service but this is a definate no go.

By: JeffreyR

JeffreyR — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:34:00 +0000

I am a very long time iTunes user who has spent gazoodles of cash purchasing music from Apple. I was skeptical of the idea of “subscription” services, since renting music seemed like a contradiction in terms. “Music needs to be owned,” I always said.

However, once Rhapsody released its iPhone app, I decided to give it a try. I was hooked notwithstanding audio quality, bugs etc., and I now subscribe. Music “on demand” only needs to be heard. It does not need to be owned. Besides, ITunes 9 is a big step backward. Its like Vista.

Although Spotify gets a lot of hype, it is running a business model that is just not sustainable. With less than 10% of listeners paying for the service, it undoubtedly will run into big cash flow problems in the near future, as its CEO has said many times recently.

Why should music be delivered free of charge? With non-premium accounts on Pandora, Slacker, last.fm, etc., you get what you pay for — essentially nothing. Even with “premium” accounts, you nevertheless remain subject to the whims of a computer that tries to predict what you want to hear, often gets it wrong and delivers incredible repetition no matter how you attempt to program the experience.

$15 a month for unlimited on-demand music is a darned good deal.

By: Jim Kerr

Jim Kerr — Wed, 14 Oct 2009 02:16:43 +0000

Th sound quality is fine for 99% of consumers. Audiophiles who buy Monster cables and listen to FLAC files will be disappointed, but they are an inconsequential part of the market.

By: Mark Carras

Mark Carras — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:50:17 +0000

Rhapsody seems to be the most shady of all online music services. The biggest part of their business model seems to be to make deals with companies (Verizon) to trick people into paying for content like free podcasts and mp3 files people have already paid for. Horrid company. I hope they die!

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:45:27 +0000

If the sound quality was better then an FM radio under water and if I could use the app without it failing 5 times in a row I would subscribe in a heartbeat.

But simply.

The app doesn’t work.

By: Ashtrash

Ashtrash — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:43:36 +0000

I’ve been using Rhapsody with Squeezebox Duet and for anyone serious about music this is the setup you need. Having the bonus to also use it in the car with the iPhone app is just fantastic. Give me offline playback and improved sound quality and this is going to be hard to beat.

By: tim m

tim m — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:38:31 +0000

i too have the sonos system with rhapsody and sirius radio. nothing beats this setup and it’s much cheaper than itunes. rhapsody is a “REAL” business and spotify is all hype. this story is a joke written by a hack.

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:27:48 +0000

It’s stupid to be too harsh to Rhapsody right now. When they developed their first version of the iPhone app, they probably did so thinking Apple would reject it. Kudos to Rhapsody for finally confronting the Apple iTunes monopoly.

We should strongly encourage Rhapsody, Spotify, Apple, etc. to continue innovating with cloud-based music services. The ability to hear any song, any where is fantastic. All Rhapsody needs to do is improve audio quality and support offline playback (if Apple lets them), and then we’ll have little to complain about, besides record labels not allowing some of their songs on on Rhapsody.

By: GreatGabbo

GreatGabbo — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:27:27 +0000

Repulsed by Rhapsody and RealNetworks in general. I subscribed to the service, which they let me do from an IP outside the US, but then I couldn’t use the service. There is no easy way to cancel the service. So I was forced to make a long distance call at midnight (to coordinate with their customer service hours) in order to cancel. The service disconnected me twice, so I had to call three times and talk with an operator to cancel the service.

What company that cares anything about its brand behaves this way??

By: Ryan

Ryan — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:08:00 +0000

I agree. Rhapsody + Sonos = music perfection. Adding Rhapsody To Go on the iphone completes the puzzle (music on a plane).

I am still confused why anyone would rather buy music at $1 / song when you can have 8 million songs for $15/month and instantly have any new releases and sample anything.

I’ll bet if Apple came out with an offering identical to Rhapsody all of the sudden people would change their mind though…

By: Mike

Mike — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 19:03:38 +0000

Offline playback? How exactly are they going to achieve that on the iphone? Doesnt apple limit the amount of space an app can take? I think that is the whole reason Slacker doesnt have offline playback…unless Rhapsody is going to go about it a different way.

By: Tony

Tony — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:57:01 +0000

God AWFUL app.
Horrible sound quality, freezes constantly, unstable.

It sounds worse then my FM radio. Anyone who likes this app has zero standards.

By: Will W

Will W — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:56:12 +0000

I have to agree with Jim. I was a Rhapsody user for a long time (primarily on the Sonos home music system, but also on my sansa mp3 player) and so am familiar with and happy with the service. Foor my money, $15/month is cheap to have all you can eat music and be able to play virtually any track you can think of. Having this on the iphone at no additional cost is a real bonus. The app itself can use some improving (stability, sound quality) and offline access on the iphone would be GREAT, but it’s already pretty good.

By: David Nguyen

David Nguyen — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:44:34 +0000

I used the Rhapsody iphone trial and it could potentially prevent me from buying the Zune HD and pass. the app crashes to much right now for now and their updates are taking way to long. I don’t want to subscribe to a service that streams low quality music on the iphone and doesn’t provide constant updates to their application.

They also need to work on their Rhapsody to go service because I don’t think it’s a good idea to rely too much on the iphone business. I tried syncing my sansa clip to the service 4 times and I got nothing but a bunch of errors. It just doesn’t work instantly and seamlessly (as people should expect for a service) and it’s part of the reason why I moved onto ipods (and Zune) instead of fumbling around with 3rd party mp3 players that don’t sync properly with paid subscription services like Rhapsody.

By: Jim Kerr

Jim Kerr — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 18:31:27 +0000

Wow, couldn’t disagree more. I subscribed to Rhapsody because of the iPhone app. My wife, daughter, and I all share the same account on our three iPhones, and it is fantastic. With a lot of usage, I can count streaming issues on one hand, and that’s with me going out of the way to look for problems. The sound quality is great. The UI is great. The sync between the web, desktop, and iPhone apps is perfect.

I’ve used Spotify via a UK proxy, and it’s pretty much a weaker version of Rhapsody. It has fewer song choices, and the UI isn’t as good or as rich with content/organization.

Honestly, for 99% of the population, the Rhapsody app for the iPhone is near perfect.