or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wants over-the-air music downloads for 3G iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple wants over-the-air music downloads for 3G iPhone

post #1 of 103
Thread Starter 
Apple is in talks some of the major music labels over a deal that would allow next-generation iPhone owners to purchase music tracks directly from the handset over cellular wireless networks, according to the New York Times.

Owners of the company's first-generation iPhone can already accomplish this via a mobile version of the iTunes Store that resides on the handset, but they must be connected to the Internet via a high-speed WiFi connection to do so.

The arrival of faster 3G cellular network access alongside the next iPhone, widely expected for an announcement during the second week of June at Apple's developers conference, would make it more "technically feasible" for Apple to offer the over-the-air route, the Times notes.

However, the paper reports that the music labels are holding their hand out, demanding that in return they be paid more than the 70 cent wholesale price of songs sold over traditional Internet lines.

Apple's hoping for "a big launch in June," according to one label executive familiar with the matter, and as such is also looking to expand its inventory of songs that are available for conversion to ringtones at 99 cents.

"The company is also hoping to add answer tones, also known as ringback tones—songs that a caller hears instead of the 'ring ring' sound while waiting for someone to answer," the report says. "In some cases, these command an even higher wholesale price than ringtones."

Given that the negotiations are only a few weeks young, it's reported that any deal may not be announced until after June 9th, the most likely day for the introduction of the much-anticipated 3G iPhone.
post #2 of 103
What the hell difference does it make to the music companies whether someone is downloading something over a fixed line or 3G connection? It makes no difference to them at all. It will make a difference to Telco's, but that is about it.

Maybe it's just the fact that they are blood sucking scum. I hope everyone makes more of an effort to pirate music and that they slowly die.
post #3 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

What the hell difference does it make to the music companies whether someone is downloading something over a fixed line or 3G connection? It makes no difference to them at all. It will make a difference to Telco's, but that is about it.

Maybe it's just the fact that they are blood sucking scum. I hope everyone makes more of an effort to pirate music and that they slowly die.

Why would you want a slow death. I much prefer the quick and decisive blow type of kill for the big record labels. Not that I just want to pirate music either. Just want more money to the artist and less cost for a song. Seriously. There are 6 billion people in this world. If you create 1 world wide hit you can sell 40 mill of it. Now I am not expert in these things but 40 mil at 99c each seems to be a fair bit of money going around. I mean really what one song on this planet is WORTH $39,600,000... and if there are any could someone give me one. I could do with some pocket money.
post #4 of 103
I think that it is basically that the record companies already charge higher prices for downloading songs over the mobile network (using other services than iTunes) and they simply want to keep the price range they have managed to set.

However I do agree that there should be no difference.
post #5 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by ALPICH View Post

Why would you want a slow death. I much prefer the quick and decisive blow type of kill for the big record labels. Not that I just want to pirate music either. Just want more money to the artist and less cost for a song. Seriously. There are 6 billion people in this world. If you create 1 world wide hit you can sell 40 mill of it. Now I am not expert in these things but 40 mil at 99c each seems to be a fair bit of money going around. I mean really what one song on this planet is WORTH $39,600,000... and if there are any could someone give me one. I could do with some pocket money.

I'm waiting for the "upload to iTunes Store" button to appear in Garageband.

Some of the homebrew stuff on radioheadremix.com is pretty listenable.

(For those who don't know iTunes users are able to purchase the separate components of a Radiohead song and submit their own remixes of that song for voting by the public)
post #6 of 103
WHY??? because they realize this is THE NEW PLATFORM, they will use every oppourtunity to push their tiered screw the customer agenda about pricing. we pay 99 cents for a higher quality song with better listening dynamics with itunes and ipod. i just bought a ringtone for 3.99 I only listen to 10-15 seconds before i pick up, and it plays through my tinpan phone speaker. how much does the record companies get for that download?? they realize and so does SJ that the iphone will be the moble itunes and i hope he kicks the record labels a..s for the years of price oppression since the cd has come out. SJ has done what antitrust and legislation hasn't been able to do (yea libertarians)

i'm tired of paying for crap. also the carriers have the most piss poor way of getting a ringtone...errors, repeat downloads, they need SJ to kick their a..s so we the customer can get a better experience. after my last and ONLY paid ringtone (ac/dc--back in black), i won't do it till SJ and itunes with the iphone gets to my grubby hands. the only other ringtones i have downloaded were free, like God Bless America, and The Star Spangled Banner. i won't pay for crap anymore. $4.00 for low quality just so i can have a segment, if you priced it for the amount of time you "listen" the the ringtone junk quality it's more like 30-40 bucks ($3-4 per 15 seconds, now i bet thats what the record lables want, segment pricing)

free us from record label oppression--i just won't or let my family download ringtones, my wife has a program that can take any itunes song and cut a segment and send to her phone....got it at apple store. yea.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #7 of 103
Is anyone surprised that the record labels want to charge more for over the air downloads for no particular reason? It's ridiculous how much they want for ring tones and ringback tones. They aren't even whole songs!!!

The money-grubbing record companies deserve to go under.
post #8 of 103
They didn't invent a thing. They do not provide ANY value for the customer (other than connection speed). They only are gatekeepers (very expensive ones that is). Music industry is just the same.

Everybody is jumping on the iPhone like a golden egg chicken. All this greed will make the phone fail in the long run.

It will become "just another mobile phone" full of "carrier specific crapware" (think about Vodafone live and similar services). No one will buy a song over UMTS (other than deep pocketed crazy adolescents).

Sorry if I'm being harsh, but I saw that one coming. Everyone wants to jump on the iPhone ship. There will be so many softwares soon (Orange, Voda or whatever-specific) available that the iPhones will no longer be compatible one another and they'll feel like different phones.

Apple should have opened up the platform like they seem to have, I only hope they will not sell it to carriers, content providers, ringtone makers... If they do this means the end of it (in the long run) because it takes away the "appleness" of the product.

The major struggle here is that carriers have long tried (at crazy prices (for music and stupid screen photos)) to establish themselves as content providers, rather than simple carriers, in order to increase revenue streams.
Apple has a long history (for modern tech) of content providing and was able to "do it all by themselves" (Nokia is trying like crazy to sell content as well, SonyEricsson much the same). The money is in the content, not in the phone nor in the "connection fees".

The clash is all there. Who delievers content for the iPhone? Carriers or Apple? Which does which (ringtones, screensavers, music, whatever)?

With a data flat rate subscription the carrier only makes that much money. If all the content is purchased through Apple, then they will LOSE a lot of money compared to other handsets in which they have their own "store" for music. Apple, by selling the very same content cheaper (at iTunes standard prices) will eat away market share and revenues like crazy.

The big clash about who will control (and deliever) content for mobile phones has just begun.
I fear that if Apple is too "open and relaxed" carriers will win this one.
Prices? (exchange rate 19 may 2008: 1 CHF = 0.95 USD)
SONGS
Orange Switzerland and Swisscom: 1 song = 2.40 USD
iTunes Store Switzerland: 1 song = 1.44 USD
Dofference: one full USD more for every song....

RINGTONES
Orange Switzerland and Swisscom: 1 ringtone = 3.8 USD
iTunes: (not available, but my guess is the same as US, i.e. same price as a full song)
1 tone = 1.44 USD
Difference: 2.4 USD each ringtone


(not counting data fees for the download, depending on the subscription).

This example is interesting as both carriers will bring the iPhone in Switzerland.

That is the main problem. And as soon as Apple starts having significant market share in some markets, then there will be big problems. Other manufacturers will start selling songs on their own. We will have Nokia store, Apple store, Orange store, Vodafone store, Samsung store....
All with non compatible DRM.

I am not looking forward to that.... Not a bit.
post #9 of 103
Null.
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
Þ & þ are called "Thorn" & þey represent þe sound you've associated "th" wiþ since þe 13þ or 14þ century. I'm bringing it back.
<(=_=)> (>=_=)> <(=_=<) ^(=_=^) (^=_=)^ ^(=_=)^ +(=_=)+
Reply
post #10 of 103
I don't see why the music business wants more money for over the air downloads either. I can see why they might cost a little bit more money because the carriers might want to make a little bit of money. After all they provide most of us with unlimited iPhone data plans but data does cost money for them to transmit. So with this pushing up data use, they might want to make a little bit per sale to cover that and keep them sweet so to speak.

I'm from the UK but I'll take a dollar guess. Say an over the air download should be say 10 cents more at the most. I think they'd be able to get sales at that price of people who aren't near a WiFi spot and really want a song now. Anymore and people will just wait until they get back to their computers and it'll be pointless.

It would be a big feature for the iPod crowd. A music player that you can purchase songs at no matter where you are.
post #11 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

WHY??? because they realize this is THE NEW PLATFORM, they will use every oppourtunity to push their tiered screw the customer agenda about pricing. we pay 99 cents for a higher quality song with better listening dynamics with itunes and ipod. i just bought a ringtone for 3.99 I only listen to 10-15 seconds before i pick up, and it plays through my tinpan phone speaker. how much does the record companies get for that download?? they realize and so does SJ that the iphone will be the moble itunes and i hope he kicks the record labels a..s for the years of price oppression since the cd has come out. SJ has done what antitrust and legislation hasn't been able to do (yea libertarians)

Sorry, but if you WILLINGLY paid 3.99 for a ringtone, THAT'S YOUR OWN D**NED FAULT. Please don't b*tch about the music companies because of your own stupidity/foolishness.
post #12 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

However, the paper reports that the music labels are holding their hand out, demanding that in return they be paid more than the 70 cent wholesale price of songs sold over traditional Internet lines.

Maybe with all their cash reserves, Apple Inc. should buy Apple Corp. and offer better contracts to the artists then the current record labels are offering, thus having artists defect from their current labels (once contract is up) over to Apple Corps. If anyone is more deserving of the 70 cents or more on the dollar it is the artist who creates not the label that thinks they are all that important because, what, they promote??? There are ways around that for the artists. The labels are too big for their own good and wasn't all that, the marketing, promoting and management hassles, the reason why the Beatles started Apple Corp. in the first place, that is, to help talented artists of all stripes who are just starting out in the biz?! If this came to fruition, Apple buying Apple, at least they can have some leverage and a catalog of music that will allow them to offer purchased downloads of songs on the iPhone with the help of 3G.

Just a rambling thought... It's a Monday... \

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply

Ten years ago, we had Steve Jobs, Bob Hope and Johnny Cash.  Today we have no Jobs, no Hope and no Cash.

Reply
post #13 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastLaneJB View Post

I don't see why the music business wants more money for over the air downloads either. I can see why they might cost a little bit more money because the carriers might want to make a little bit of money. After all they provide most of us with unlimited iPhone data plans but data does cost money for them to transmit. So with this pushing up data use, they might want to make a little bit per sale to cover that and keep them sweet so to speak.

I'm from the UK but I'll take a dollar guess. Say an over the air download should be say 10 cents more at the most.

That's about it, and that 10 cents would be payable to the carrier, rather than the music label.

In terms of the purchased material, you're getting the same thing - a song downloaded over the internet, whether the back-end is a 3G mobile network or a standard home internet connection. There is no case for the music label's fee to be higher apart from sheer greed and artificial compartmentalisation of the marketplace.
post #14 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

WHY??? because they realize this is THE NEW PLATFORM, they will use every oppourtunity to push their tiered screw the customer agenda about pricing. we pay 99 cents for a higher quality song with better listening dynamics with itunes and ipod. i just bought a ringtone for 3.99 I only listen to 10-15 seconds before i pick up, and it plays through my tinpan phone speaker. how much does the record companies get for that download?? they realize and so does SJ that the iphone will be the moble itunes and i hope he kicks the record labels a..s for the years of price oppression since the cd has come out. SJ has done what antitrust and legislation hasn't been able to do (yea libertarians)

i'm tired of paying for crap. also the carriers have the most piss poor way of getting a ringtone...errors, repeat downloads, they need SJ to kick their a..s so we the customer can get a better experience. after my last and ONLY paid ringtone (ac/dc--back in black), i won't do it till SJ and itunes with the iphone gets to my grubby hands. the only other ringtones i have downloaded were free, like God Bless America, and The Star Spangled Banner. i won't pay for crap anymore. $4.00 for low quality just so i can have a segment, if you priced it for the amount of time you "listen" the the ringtone junk quality it's more like 30-40 bucks ($3-4 per 15 seconds, now i bet thats what the record lables want, segment pricing)

free us from record label oppression--i just won't or let my family download ringtones, my wife has a program that can take any itunes song and cut a segment and send to her phone....got it at apple store. yea.

One word: Amazon.

Amazon beats iTunes in terms of pricing and higher bit rates. PERIOD. Your arguments are sort of baseless here. I ONLY purchase from iTunes if it is not available on Amazon and I do not feel like requesting that Amazon add it. Save yourself some cash, get better quality and head on over to Amazon.

As for paying for ringing tones, I have been making mine for about 3 years, as well as making for my iPhone for as long as it has been cracked. The records companies are not in my pocket there.
post #15 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple is in talks some of the major music labels over a deal that would allow next-generation iPhone owners to purchase music tracks directly from the handset over cellular wireless networks, according to the New York Times.

Owners of the company's first-generation iPhone can already accomplish this via a mobile version of the iTunes Store that resides on the handset, but they must be connected to the Internet via a high-speed WiFi connection to do so.

The arrival of faster 3G cellular network access alongside the next iPhone, widely expected for an announcement during the second week of June at Apple's developers conference, would make it more "technically feasible" for Apple to offer the over-the-air route, the Times notes.

However, the paper reports that the music labels are holding their hand out, demanding that in return they be paid more than the 70 cent wholesale price of songs sold over traditional Internet lines.

Apple's hoping for "a big launch in June," according to one label executive familiar with the matter, and as such is also looking to expand its inventory of songs that are available for conversion to ringtones at 99 cents.

"The company is also hoping to add answer tones, also known as ringback tonessongs that a caller hears instead of the 'ring ring' sound while waiting for someone to answer," the report says. "In some cases, these command an even higher wholesale price than ringtones."

Given that the negotiations are only a few weeks young, it's reported that any deal may not be announced until after June 9th, the most likely day for the introduction of the much-anticipated 3G iPhone.


Well duh!!!!!!! You think? This is nothing new except to the iPhone. OTA downloads have been available in other phones for a while. Just because Apple sees this as a new "oh wow" gimmick does not mean they are innovating it. What Apple should do is reconfig the iTunes store and current iPhones to allow downloads OTA regardless. If I have unlimited data, what do I care if it takes 6 or 7 mins to download a song?
post #16 of 103
Wankers. Fuck em all.
post #17 of 103
The music labels are freaking out. Their problem is that they don't want to adjust according to technological evolution. They are really freaking out because they think once online music dominate artist will start recording and distributing their own music or that iTunes or Amazon will become the music label! The idiots don't realize that they can have control if they start moving forward and fix their business model.
post #18 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rot'nApple View Post

Maybe with all their cash reserves, Apple Inc. should buy Apple Corp. and offer better contracts to the artists then the current record labels are offering, thus having artists defect from their current labels (once contract is up) over to Apple Corps. If anyone is more deserving of the 70 cents or more on the dollar it is the artist who creates not the label that thinks they are all that important because, what, they promote??? There are ways around that for the artists. The labels are too big for their own good and wasn't all that, the marketing, promoting and management hassles, the reason why the Beatles started Apple Corp. in the first place, that is, to help talented artists of all stripes who are just starting out in the biz?! If this came to fruition, Apple buying Apple, at least they can have some leverage and a catalog of music that will allow them to offer purchased downloads of songs on the iPhone with the help of 3G.

Just a rambling thought... It's a Monday... \

No ramble dude. A friggin fact. Good idea. Did you read where Jermaine (Jerkmaine) Dupree said that we the consumers were stupid and we should be happy for what we get. This all stemmed from the argument Jay-Z had with Apple about his "concept" CD for American Gangster.

Double click on Limewire. Search: anything from Jermaine Dupree. Download all.
post #19 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Well duh!!!!!!! You think? This is nothing new except to the iPhone. OTA downloads have been available in other phones for a while. Just because Apple sees this as a new "oh wow" gimmick does not mean they are innovating it. What Apple should do is reconfig the iTunes store and current iPhones to allow downloads OTA regardless. If I have unlimited data, what do I care if it takes 6 or 7 mins to download a song?

Your missing the point. I think the point is that Apple's present contract does not allow them to allow downloads over mobile data. This is probably why the iPhone is limited to WiFi only. I cannot believe it's because of the speed when they are going to allow people to download applications and games in the App Store over EDGE.

I don't see this being mentioned as an Oh Wow feature. It's just a nice feature that Apple are trying to add.

If you look at Nokia, SE, and providers music stores they are all vastly more expensive than iTunes. Clearly the music labels want to push Apple up to that sort of pricing for mobile downloads. Why they insist on more money for mobile downloads I have no idea. Probably because if it's too cheap they see it killing off their CD cashcow because it would be just so damn convenient.

P.S. What does Amazon have to do with iTunes OTA downloads? Seeing as Apple don't allow Apps to interface with iTunes on Mobile OS X there isn't going to be an Amazon OTA store. Not unless Apple decide to allow it. Also the Amazon MP3 store is only available in the US, not much use for the rest of the world.
post #20 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

One word: Amazon.

Amazon beats iTunes in terms of pricing and higher bit rates. PERIOD. Your arguments are sort of baseless here. I ONLY purchase from iTunes if it is not available on Amazon and I do not feel like requesting that Amazon add it. Save yourself some cash, get better quality and head on over to Amazon.

Actually, in terms of quality (for the same bit rate) and library size iTunes is still better than Amazon. Personally, 10c is not that much of saving.
post #21 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

One word: Amazon.

Amazon beats iTunes in terms of pricing and higher bit rates. PERIOD. Your arguments are sort of baseless here. I ONLY purchase from iTunes if it is not available on Amazon and I do not feel like requesting that Amazon add it. Save yourself some cash, get better quality and head on over to Amazon.

As for paying for ringing tones, I have been making mine for about 3 years, as well as making for my iPhone for as long as it has been cracked. The records companies are not in my pocket there.

You aren't really naive enough to think that the 89© Amazon charges is something the labels want to do, do you?

You do understand that the only reason why they are doing that is to break itunes?

The point being that they could then RAISE prices to the levels they are crying for.

And, of course, that you are helping them to do that.

By buying from Amazon, people will make it impossible for Apple to get the deal they want.

But that thinking is too long term, right?
post #22 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Well duh!!!!!!! You think? This is nothing new except to the iPhone. OTA downloads have been available in other phones for a while. Just because Apple sees this as a new "oh wow" gimmick does not mean they are innovating it. What Apple should do is reconfig the iTunes store and current iPhones to allow downloads OTA regardless. If I have unlimited data, what do I care if it takes 6 or 7 mins to download a song?

Why do some people always think that everything is so simple?

If Apple, or the other phone makers could sell songs over the network at 99©, or any reasonable price themselves, don't you think they would be doing it?

They don't do it because the cell companies have them tied up with contracts saying that only the cell companies can sell songs over their networks.

Apple didn't try before, because EDGE is really too slow. That's why they did it with WiFi. One, it's fast enough, and, two, it's off network, so the cell company can't do anything about it.

But now, with 3G, they want to sell songs thaere as well.

Despite what you say, no one is doing this right now. The cell companies control all song selling over their networks, and the cash goes through their hands, with a big chunk remaining in them.

Apple is trying to work around that as much as possible.
post #23 of 103
To tell you the truth, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Most sane people would simply wait until they were close to a WiFi connection to download a song versus paying more for it over a cellular network (if it came down to that).

Seriously, how many times are you out somewhere, with no connection to a WiFi network, and then say all of a sudden, "I MUST HAVE THAT SONG" or "I MUST HAVE THAT ALBUM"?

Let Apple and the music companies fight it out, I don't think that's it's anything that WE should be losing sleep over. If Apple in the end looses the fight and has to charge more for cellular downloads, so be it -- I won't be stupid enough to pay the higher price anyway.

In fact, I'll just stick to buying used CDs from Half.com like I always have in the past. Pay a few dollars for the CD, then rip them to MP3s myself. It's much cheaper than going through iTunes and opens me up to a vast library or music.

My iPod touch hasn't complained once about this arrangement
post #24 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastLaneJB View Post

Your missing the point. I think the point is that Apple's present contract does not allow them to allow downloads over mobile data. This is probably why the iPhone is limited to WiFi only. I cannot believe it's because of the speed when they are going to allow people to download applications and games in the App Store over EDGE.

I don't see this being mentioned as an Oh Wow feature. It's just a nice feature that Apple are trying to add.

If you look at Nokia, SE, and providers music stores they are all vastly more expensive than iTunes. Clearly the music labels want to push Apple up to that sort of pricing for mobile downloads. Why they insist on more money for mobile downloads I have no idea. Probably because if it's too cheap they see it killing off their CD cashcow because it would be just so damn convenient.

P.S. What does Amazon have to do with iTunes OTA downloads? Seeing as Apple don't allow Apps to interface with iTunes on Mobile OS X there isn't going to be an Amazon OTA store. Not unless Apple decide to allow it. Also the Amazon MP3 store is only available in the US, not much use for the rest of the world.

Generally, both programs, and games, are smaller than the average song, so download times are shorter. Not too many phone/PDA programs equal the 4.5 MB that a typical song (128K) is.
post #25 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Actually, in terms of quality (for the same bit rate) and library size iTunes is still better than Amazon. Personally, 10c is not that much of saving.

The availability of comparable bitrates is limited to something like 20% of iTunes' inventory. That tidbit of information isn't very useful for the rest. I realize it's probably not Apple's fault, but the reality remains.
post #26 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post


........free us from record label oppression--i just won't or let my family download ringtones, my wife has a program that can take any itunes song and cut a segment and send to her phone....got it at apple store. yea.

I can't see the point of paying for a music download on a mobile. On my Sony Ericsson I transfer songs from my ripped CD's on iTunes to it, which I play if I'm waiting somewhere, and I use some loud sounding tunes for my ringtones and alarms, which the Sony allows you to do. This way you have a wider choice of tunes to choose from, instead of the limited choice supplied with a phone. In the past, it's also been annoying when upgrading to another phone to find another set of different and useless ringtones.

When I get an iPod Touch soon, I hope to be able to do the same, but I guess I'll have to use some cracked software to be able to do this, as Apple being Apple would make you pay for the privilege. Having to pay for ringtones is just a rip-off as far as I'm concerned
post #27 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastLaneJB View Post

Your missing the point. I think the point is that Apple's present contract does not allow them to allow downloads over mobile data. This is probably why the iPhone is limited to WiFi only. I cannot believe it's because of the speed when they are going to allow people to download applications and games in the App Store over EDGE.

Good point but unlimited data is unlimited data. I should (in theory) be allowed to download as I please regardless. I am not sure about the contract thing you mentioned. You might be right but I do not think the terms have been released.

Quote:
I don't see this being mentioned as an Oh Wow feature. It's just a nice feature that Apple are trying to add.

I was mentioning in the vernacular of it being something new. It's not. It has been done before.

Quote:
If you look at Nokia, SE, and providers music stores they are all vastly more expensive than iTunes. Clearly the music labels want to push Apple up to that sort of pricing for mobile downloads. Why they insist on more money for mobile downloads I have no idea. Probably because if it's too cheap they see it killing off their CD cashcow because it would be just so damn convenient.

To be honest, I have not checked lately. I know that Nokia is now offering (or will offer) a bundled product: "Comes with Music" type of deal. Not sure how this will impact Apple. I do not think all the details have been released.

Quote:
P.S. What does Amazon have to do with iTunes OTA downloads? Seeing as Apple don't allow Apps to interface with iTunes on Mobile OS X there isn't going to be an Amazon OTA store. Not unless Apple decide to allow it. Also the Amazon MP3 store is only available in the US, not much use for the rest of the world.

I pay for US Amazon. I was under the impression that the OP was based in the US. If not, oh well.
post #28 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Generally, both programs, and games, are smaller than the average song, so download times are shorter. Not too many phone/PDA programs equal the 4.5 MB that a typical song (128K) is.

While I can agree on the program side, I cannot on games. OK there might be some games which aren't overly graphics or sound intensive but I also suspect there will be a reasonable amount of games with large 3D textures and good quality music. After all the iPhone will be the first phone (Plus the iPod Touch) where the developers can write using OpenGL ES without cutting down their target market hugely.

Seeing as you've got at least a 4GB flash drive on all the devices (Minus OS) you've got the storage and the phone has 128MB of RAM. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see a few 5+MB games. It really should be capable of some impressive graphics way beyond what we've ever seen on a phone before.
post #29 of 103
Call me redundant but I'm not sure why it matters how you download songs. You can use the internet "over the air." Why should the content owners have any say in which network you can use to access the store.

They agreed to sell over the internet. That is the internet.
post #30 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by NasserAE View Post

Actually, in terms of quality (for the same bit rate) and library size iTunes is still better than Amazon. Personally, 10c is not that much of saving.

In terms of bit rates most if not all of Amazon's songs are of a higher bit rate and I will take that $.10 saving. Add up 8 or 9 and I have a free song for the price of 1 iTunes song.
post #31 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by edified View Post

Call me redundant but I'm not sure why it matters how you download songs. You can use the internet "over the air." Why should the content owners have any say in which network you can use to access the store.

They agreed to sell over the internet. That is the internet.

Agreed
post #32 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Why do some people always think that everything is so simple?

If Apple, or the other phone makers could sell songs over the network at 99©, or any reasonable price themselves, don't you think they would be doing it?

They don't do it because the cell companies have them tied up with contracts saying that only the cell companies can sell songs over their networks.

Apple didn't try before, because EDGE is really too slow. That's why they did it with WiFi. One, it's fast enough, and, two, it's off network, so the cell company can't do anything about it.

But now, with 3G, they want to sell songs thaere as well.

Despite what you say, no one is doing this right now. The cell companies control all song selling over their networks, and the cash goes through their hands, with a big chunk remaining in them.

Apple is trying to work around that as much as possible.

Data is data. If I want to sit and wait 10 mins for a song to download that is my biz, at least give me the chance to do it. SImplicity has nothing to do with it. It is all about choice.
post #33 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mazda 3s View Post

To tell you the truth, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Most sane people would simply wait until they were close to a WiFi connection to download a song versus paying more for it over a cellular network (if it came down to that).

Seriously, how many times are you out somewhere, with no connection to a WiFi network, and then say all of a sudden, "I MUST HAVE THAT SONG" or "I MUST HAVE THAT ALBUM"?

Let Apple and the music companies fight it out, I don't think that's it's anything that WE should be losing sleep over. If Apple in the end looses the fight and has to charge more for cellular downloads, so be it -- I won't be stupid enough to pay the higher price anyway.

In fact, I'll just stick to buying used CDs from Half.com like I always have in the past. Pay a few dollars for the CD, then rip them to MP3s myself. It's much cheaper than going through iTunes and opens me up to a vast library or music.

My iPod touch hasn't complained once about this arrangement

RIGHT!!!!!
post #34 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The availability of comparable bitrates is limited to something like 20% of iTunes' inventory. That tidbit of information isn't very useful for the rest. I realize it's probably not Apple's fault, but the reality remains.

Exactly. I know it is not all Apple's fault, but the fact remains, higher bit rates for less money equal a bargain.
post #35 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You aren't really naive enough to think that the 89© Amazon charges is something the labels want to do, do you?

So what. If I can get cheaper songs then I do.

Quote:
You do understand that the only reason why they are doing that is to break itunes?

The point being that they could then RAISE prices to the levels they are crying for.

And, of course, that you are helping them to do that.

Is this another Steve Jobs is looking out for the little guy argument? Steve Jobs is only loyal to the current Mrs. Jobs, his kids, and the shareholders. Steve Jobs is not our friends.

Quote:
By buying from Amazon, people will make it impossible for Apple to get the deal they want.

But that thinking is too long term, right?

Welcome to the biz world. Some win, some lose.
post #36 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

So what. If I can get cheaper songs then I do.



Is this another Steve Jobs is looking out for the little guy argument? Steve Jobs is only loyal to the current Mrs. Jobs, his kids, and the shareholders. Steve Jobs is not our friends.



Welcome to the biz world. Some win, some lose.

I've got to agree here. Who cares where the songs come from? If they are cheaper and of higher bitrate, then so be it. I don't give a crap about how it affects Apple (Apple is doing just fine if you must know), I'm looking out for my wallet.

As long as it legal and not that much of a hassle to download, it shouldn't really be an issue.
post #37 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hutcho View Post

What the hell difference does it make to the music companies whether someone is downloading something over a fixed line or 3G connection? It makes no difference to them at all. It will make a difference to Telco's, but that is about it.

That pretty much sums it up and frankly is what I felt when first reading this thread.
Quote:

Maybe it's just the fact that they are blood sucking scum.

YEP!
Quote:
I hope everyone makes more of an effort to pirate music and that they slowly die.

Well this part I can and will disagree with. The companies certainly need to die there is no doubt at all about that, but that outcome can be assured without dirtying ones self with questionable activities. The answer is to not do business with the record companies and the artists signed with them, that are after this. I do mean to "do business" as like it or not most musicians are in it for the money. Keep them from benefiting form a relationship with the big labels and sooner or later they will get the hint. It is not just the purchase of tracks managed by the record companies either, one has to make sure the artist never benefit from any of their financial efforts while signed with these labels. That means no money spent on concerts, tee shirts or anything else offered up.

Dave
post #38 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by FastLaneJB View Post

While I can agree on the program side, I cannot on games. OK there might be some games which aren't overly graphics or sound intensive but I also suspect there will be a reasonable amount of games with large 3D textures and good quality music. After all the iPhone will be the first phone (Plus the iPod Touch) where the developers can write using OpenGL ES without cutting down their target market hugely.

Seeing as you've got at least a 4GB flash drive on all the devices (Minus OS) you've got the storage and the phone has 128MB of RAM. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see a few 5+MB games. It really should be capable of some impressive graphics way beyond what we've ever seen on a phone before.

That's why I said "most". I'm sure there will be a few. but most will likely be well under 1 MB.

Don't forget that textures and scenery, need be only 480 x 320 at this point. even if they scroll they will be small. figure out how many bits are needed. It's very few.
post #39 of 103
THe only way I can see giving the record companies more money is if THEY, the record companies can arrange a deal with the operators to guarantee a QoS for all the songs being downloaded via iTunes. As this will never happen, I can not see a way to pay them more money.
post #40 of 103
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

Data is data. If I want to sit and wait 10 mins for a song to download that is my biz, at least give me the chance to do it. SImplicity has nothing to do with it. It is all about choice.

Your business is your business to be sure. But network operators see it differently. That's their business, and they have to make a profit, and keep the airwaves open. Sometimes, other than for greed, and I'm not denying that's a part, charging fees prevents people from staying on all the time downloading. If that happens, everyone's rates will go up, or they will start throttling, that is what Cox and Comcast do now with P2P.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple wants over-the-air music downloads for 3G iPhone