I can't transfer Apple Music to iPod Nano

Sorry deggie, but I fully agree with kmbro.

Your royalty argument does not make any sense !!!

Managing an iTunes Library which contains partly purchased partly rented items is a mess already. If I decide to use Apple Music on a permanent basis, they should really find a way of making it accessible on all Apple devices! The nano already counts the number of times a song gets played. Apple just has to find a way to transfer this information once connected to iTunes...

I am a loyal Apple customer for more than 20 years now. But I still do not understand why you people have to defend the company no matter what...

Apple Music can be something great! Just take our opinion and constructive criticism seriously and work on it instead of being ignorant and childish!

How does my argument not make sense?

The Nano does indeed count how many times a song is played. But it doesn't have WiFi so it cannot connect to a hotspot and transmit this information. And because it can be used as a hard drive you can manually manage your music on it. And when you sync in this manner it does NOT transfer play count, created playlists or anything. So how would you guarantee artists that you are presenting an accurate play count? Yes, they could release a new iPod Nano that would not allow manual managing of music but thus far it doesn't look like they are going to do that and they are limiting Apple Music to devices that run either iOS or OS X. Does that make sense to you? They are not making it available to devices that run Pixo. Just like apps in the App Store for iOS devices don't run Pixo.

You can't change all the current devices through a firmware upgrade because they aren't mandatory and you could still have millions of devices out there that are manually managing their music.

Who knows, maybe they will come up with an iPod Touch Nano that runs iOS.

You can't change all the current devices through a firmware upgrade because they aren't mandatory and you could still have millions of devices out there that are manually managing their music.

All they would have to do is say "Apple Music is now supported on the iPod Nano, but you have to upgrade to firmware version x.y.z. first."

I just don't think the Nano and Shuffle are a priority at all for Apple since sales are very low. And rumors are that the team responsible for maintaining the software for them has long since been moved off onto other things.

How does Apple calculate the royalty due on my 64GB iPod Touch if I download thousands of songs, turn off wifi, cancel my Apple Music subscription, listen to music for 20 years, then crush my iPod?

The basic expectation for pay-per-play is that the thing doing the playing has to connect back to Apple once in a while so it can report its play count. With my iPod Nano I'm going to connect it to my MacBook regularly so I can load it with new music. That's the whole point of Apple Music - disposable recyclable tunes!

Alternative, perhaps Apple have realised that pay-per-play is a very inefficient system for paying royalties and they offer different levels of pay-per-download instead, so if someone purchases a song in the old-fashioned iTunes way then they artist gets amount X, and if someone stores it for offline playing then the artist gets amount Y where Y < X, because the assumption is that the customer is going to delete the track in the not-too-far-distant future because it's a throw-away.

I'd be interested to know how long the DRM license for an Apple Music make-available-offline download lasts. It doesn't have to be forever, it only needs to last for a month or two. iTunes on the MacBook/PC could keep an eye on license expiry and request a new one from the Apple Server, and the Apple Server would refuse to grant it if the user's Apple Music subscription had expired.

So please don't tell me this isn't possible, or isn't fair to the artist. It could be, if only Apple would put their mind to it. And that would make them start being fair to the most important person in this relationship - ME - because I'm the poor sod who PAYING for it all.

Apple Music uses a new type of DRM so you'd have to do a firmware update in order to play it in the first place. Problem solved.

How many senseless people do you know, other than maybe yourself, that are going to load songs one time to an iPod Touch, turn off WiFi and use it only to listen to those songs? If you turn on WiFi and connect to a hotspot it will report your play count because you agreed to that when you signed up. I think any artist would agree there are going to be very, very few morons who are going to do your scenario and could live with the loss.

There are millions of people who manually manage their music on iPod Nanos as they sync from multiple computers. If it was known you could get around using Apple Music by doing so there would be millions more. If you are manually managing your music it doesn't matter how many times you sync it will NOT report the play count.

Currently it is not feasible to change the system to make the past iPod technology compatible. Nothing says that can't bring out a new model that is compatible. The iPod was developed long before there was any subscription music service. You already know that Apple is not a company that clings to backwards compatibility given your experience with them.

Are you certain that the OS and CPU in the past iPods are capable of running the decoders for the new DRM? Is Apple going to do a hardware/OS/software upgrade also? And you still haven't solved the play count issue.

It would be much more complex than that.

However, I need an apple device that is able to play Apple Music offline for my workouts.

I do not want to carry my bulky iPhone while running. If there is no way of making the "old" devices compatible, than just introduce a new device!

I would buy an apple watch just for sports, but since it's worth nothing without the iPhone, it does not solve my workout issues...

This is frustrating!

So since the iPod Nano, various generations, predates Apple Music by 8 years, how did you solve this issue before Apple Music was announced?

And again, perhaps Apple is working on a new line of portable music players that are Apple Music compatible. They just aren't read yet.

Senseless?

An iPod Touch has 64GB of storage and a track is, for arguments sake, 10MB, so it can store 6.4 million tracks. Each track costs 99p (yes, Apple still operate pound-for-dollar parity, despite the exchange rate) so the total cost of music is £6,336,000.

If I buy a brand new 64GB iPod Touch, subscribe to Apple Music for a month, fill it with tracks, cancel my subscription and turn off wifi then my outlay is £249+£10 = £259, so that's quite a saving for someone as senseless as my humble self.

I wonder how long it would take to listen to 6.4 million tracks. Let's say they average 3 minutes. That's about 36.5 years. And If I got a 128GB iPod then that would be 73 years. I'm 51 now. I wonder if I'll be alive long enough to listen to them all?

And I still have my iPhone 6 if I want to use the Internet.

Well I've guess we've identified the person who would do something like that.

But 99.9% of the people who own an iPod Touch would not do so.

You're happy to argue that people with a iPod Touch will obviously always connect their device so that Apple can download the play count, but that people with an iPod Nano won't. Why do you think iPod Nano owners wouldn't do that? I don't really want to download 36 years worth of music and sit in my rocking chair listening to it, I want to get the fresh new tunes, man, despite my advancing years (or maybe because of them, who knows?!)

You also argue that the iPod Nano is not technically capable of playing Apple DRM music? Well it always used to be, back in the days before iTunes purchases were DRM-free.

Ahah! You say, but the new Apple DRM is more complex so the poor Nano can't cope. Well who designed the new DRM? Apple, of course. So couldn't they have designed it so that the humble Nano could still cope (we're assuming here that it can't which no one who actually knows has told us, only you). And do you really expect me to believe that the processor in an Apple Watch is so much more powerful than the one in a Nano?

Apparently not. FairPlay, which has been gone for a decade, was a very simple DRM and took very little decoding. It could also be easily bypassed. DRM used in todays world don't in any way resemble it. Yes, Apple could have designed a simple DRM that would work on all past iPods, Macs, **** they could have even designed it to work on the Apple II. But there would be no way they would do so. As I said before Apple is not one to be a slave to backwards compatibility (that would be MicroSoft).

Yes, the processor in the Apple Watch is much more powerful than the one in the iPod Nano 7th Generation. I don't expect you to believe it because you appear to lack technical knowledge, but it is. And the Watch runs a subset of iOS (watchOS) which the Nano does not.

Bottom line is currently the iPod line (other than the Touch) cannot use Apple Music. You can write to Apple and ask them to change this. It may or may not happen for current iPods. It is possible in the future that Apple could issue a true 8th Generation Nano that runs iOS, has WiFi and is the current size (likely only if there is a breakthrough in battery technology) or they could release one with a chipset designed for Apple Music that does not allow manually managing music (more likely). But I honestly don't think Apple Music will every run on our Nanos and Shuffles we currently have.

deggie wrote:

Apparently not. FairPlay, which has been gone for a decade, was a very simple DRM and took very little decoding. It could also be easily bypassed. DRM used in todays world don't in any way resemble it.

Do we actually know what kind of DRM is being used and if it's any different, or is this just speculation?

I searched around on the internet and most places just call it "DRM" without any specific type mentioned, but a couple places did refer to it as Fairplay (although no idea if it's a newer type of Fairplay or the same that was there before).