I was curious. Let's say that each song costs $0.99. Will Apple charge your card 99 cents every time you buy a song? Wouldn't that get expensive for them?
Or will they wait and charge you until the end of the month, in which case you'd have to get "credit" by giving them a credit card when you create your account? I'm guessing that this is how it'll work.
Apple can work out Micropayment levels with the CC companies, so that a 99 cent charge might only cost Apple a few pennies, or even less if Apple does the pre-processing and just transmits a database file to Visa/MC/Amex at the end of the day.
I do believe that .Mac members will get some songs/premium access as part of the .Mac service.
everybody in the Mac-world, as well as outside, is on red-alert for this thing... it is going to be the biggest thing since sliced bread, which replaced windows, which conquered the wheel, which paraded over shelter
you get the idea... things in many newpapers/newsmagazines... expect TIME...
wait a second....
maybe apple is giving TIME a sneak peek again? and that is why they moved it to monday, instead of their normal tuesday releases?
Wolpert argues that for all the expected hype from Apple chief Steve Jobs about the convenience of buying single tunes, "on Rhapsody you get unlimited songs for $9.95. So if you found 50 songs to listen to, it would cost $9.95. On the Apple service, that 50 would be $50. That could be a problem."
What Wolpert doesn't say is that his service is streaming only. If you want to then go ahead and burn those songs, you'll pay $0.99 per song to be burned. So you'll pay $59.45 for those same 50 songs -> (0.99 x 50) + 9.95
What Wolpert doesn't say is that his service is streaming only. If you want to then go ahead and burn those songs, you'll pay $0.99 per song to be burned. So you'll pay $59.45 for those same 50 songs -> (0.99 x 50) + 9.95
Apple wins.
Yeah, that's an important distinction. You can bet Jobs will mention it.
Content can also be burned to CD. Credit-card information is stored on file in the store's shopping-cart system so the consumer does not have to re-enter the information for each purchase. The offering is expected to be made available initially only to users of Apple computers.
As part of its announcement, Apple is expected to unveil content-licensing deals with all five major labels. The Apple service is also expected to feature music from high-profile acts whose repertoire has not previously been available for digital distribution.
For details, see the May 3 issue of Billboard, the content of which will be posted after 3 p.m. ET today (April 25) in the Premium Services section of Billboard.com.
Is anyone from AI Billboard member there to get the details as mentioned above ? Please, please....
What Wolpert doesn't say is that his service is streaming only. If you want to then go ahead and burn those songs, you'll pay $0.99 per song to be burned. So you'll pay $59.45 for those same 50 songs -> (0.99 x 50) + 9.95
Apple wins.
Damn, I'd rather spend that $10 a month for XM radio if you can't burn them because you'd get a hell of a lot more then 50 songs.
Someone posted at macrumors via Wall Street Journal that it's .99¢ per song and $10 a CD and have big names that would normally not do this. The songs are playable on 3 macs and can't be loaded onto an iPod then taken to another computer or something.
Find, but can they be burned? If so, why can't I burn the CD and rip it on another machine? Or are these iPod/iTunes only files?
Someone posted at macrumors via Wall Street Journal that it's .99¢ per song and $10 a CD and have big names that would normally not do this. The songs are playable on 3 macs and can't be loaded onto an iPod then taken to another computer or something.
Find, but can they be burned? If so, why can't I burn the CD and rip it on another machine? Or are these iPod/iTunes only files?
They're AAC files with some sort of copy protection. I seem to recall that you'd have the option of "ripping" them to MP3 and burning CDs from there, but the industry might have had a cow at that thought, even given MP3's worse compression and lower quality.
All I can say is: 1) They'd better offer more than the current acts published by the big five, and 2) there'd better be some way to get those songs onto a CD. I will be able to play songs that I've paid for in my car, or Steve gets no sale.
Label sources tell Bulletin that the service is an a la carte download store -- not unlike that of rival Liquid Audio -- that is built into Apple's iTunes player. No subscription is required for the service, and tracks are expected to retail for an average of 99 cents. Once purchased, tracks are transferred to the consumer's iTunes music library and are automatically synched to the user's iPod portable player.
Content can also be burned to CD. Credit-card information is stored on file in the store's shopping-cart system so the consumer does not have to re-enter the information for each purchase. The offering is expected to be made available initially only to users of Apple computers.
As part of its announcement, Apple is expected to unveil content-licensing deals with all five major labels. The Apple service is also expected to feature music from high-profile acts whose repertoire has not previously been available for digital distribution.
So if can be burned, where's the protection? The actual file is protected but can be ripped and burned later. I guess the fact that they are getting you to pay a buck per song that has a few limits and you can't post it broadly to a p2p network because of the 3 machine limit makes it appealing to the execs. Ripping a CD from paid ACC songs is no worse then ripping a store bought CD I guess. That's cool. We get to be bad only after we've ben good. That's a comprimise I can handle.
All I can say is: 1) They'd better offer more than the current acts published by the big five, and 2) there'd better be some way to get those songs onto a CD. I will be able to play songs that I've paid for in my car, or Steve gets no sale.
Precisely. Oh, how I hope some small labels can find a way to get into the act. Most of what I listen to isn't produced by the major labels: Metropolis, Nettwerk, Subconcious, Zoth Ommog, etc., though some of that stuff is distributed via the big 5. And back catalogs are really important to me too, but I willing to be more patient with that.
Precisely. Oh, how I hope some small labels can find a way to get into the act. Most of what I listen to isn't produced by the major labels: Metropolis, Nettwerk, Subconcious, Zoth Ommog, etc., though some of that stuff is distributed via the big 5.
Speaking as an independent artist, part of me is hoping that not only labels can join the party. The labels might not like getting bypassed, though.
Quote:
And back catalogs are really important to me too, but I willing to be more patient with that.
EMI just forced that issue by offering their back catalog for download, so I actually don't think that'll be a problem.
1. That I won't be able to burn a cd. (won't talk about it, been discussed extensively)
2. That the mp3s (or AAC whatever) will not be up to par quality wise with what i like to listen to...
I hate listening to 128 bit mp3. I want to be able to get AT LEAST 192 bit quality... I would even like the option of 256 or 320 quality, but if 192 happens, i'll be totally ok with it..
So, anyone have any thoughts on the sound quality that apple is going to bring?
Comments
Or will they wait and charge you until the end of the month, in which case you'd have to get "credit" by giving them a credit card when you create your account? I'm guessing that this is how it'll work.
EDIT: Actually, 200 for 50 sounds better to me... I mean, come on, they shouldnt over - charge for this.
I do believe that .Mac members will get some songs/premium access as part of the .Mac service.
you get the idea... things in many newpapers/newsmagazines... expect TIME...
wait a second....
maybe apple is giving TIME a sneak peek again? and that is why they moved it to monday, instead of their normal tuesday releases?
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/webguid...le-music_x.htm
One interesting quote:
Wolpert argues that for all the expected hype from Apple chief Steve Jobs about the convenience of buying single tunes, "on Rhapsody you get unlimited songs for $9.95. So if you found 50 songs to listen to, it would cost $9.95. On the Apple service, that 50 would be $50. That could be a problem."
Wolpert works for Real Networks.
Apple wins.
Originally posted by David R
What Wolpert doesn't say is that his service is streaming only. If you want to then go ahead and burn those songs, you'll pay $0.99 per song to be burned. So you'll pay $59.45 for those same 50 songs -> (0.99 x 50) + 9.95
Apple wins.
Yeah, that's an important distinction. You can bet Jobs will mention it.
Content can also be burned to CD. Credit-card information is stored on file in the store's shopping-cart system so the consumer does not have to re-enter the information for each purchase. The offering is expected to be made available initially only to users of Apple computers.
As part of its announcement, Apple is expected to unveil content-licensing deals with all five major labels. The Apple service is also expected to feature music from high-profile acts whose repertoire has not previously been available for digital distribution.
For details, see the May 3 issue of Billboard, the content of which will be posted after 3 p.m. ET today (April 25) in the Premium Services section of Billboard.com.
Is anyone from AI Billboard member there to get the details as mentioned above ? Please, please....
http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/ar...ent_id=1874807
Originally posted by David R
What Wolpert doesn't say is that his service is streaming only. If you want to then go ahead and burn those songs, you'll pay $0.99 per song to be burned. So you'll pay $59.45 for those same 50 songs -> (0.99 x 50) + 9.95
Apple wins.
Damn, I'd rather spend that $10 a month for XM radio if you can't burn them because you'd get a hell of a lot more then 50 songs.
Find, but can they be burned? If so, why can't I burn the CD and rip it on another machine? Or are these iPod/iTunes only files?
Originally posted by KidRed
Someone posted at macrumors via Wall Street Journal that it's .99¢ per song and $10 a CD and have big names that would normally not do this. The songs are playable on 3 macs and can't be loaded onto an iPod then taken to another computer or something.
Find, but can they be burned? If so, why can't I burn the CD and rip it on another machine? Or are these iPod/iTunes only files?
They're AAC files with some sort of copy protection. I seem to recall that you'd have the option of "ripping" them to MP3 and burning CDs from there, but the industry might have had a cow at that thought, even given MP3's worse compression and lower quality.
All I can say is: 1) They'd better offer more than the current acts published by the big five, and 2) there'd better be some way to get those songs onto a CD. I will be able to play songs that I've paid for in my car, or Steve gets no sale.
Label sources tell Bulletin that the service is an a la carte download store -- not unlike that of rival Liquid Audio -- that is built into Apple's iTunes player. No subscription is required for the service, and tracks are expected to retail for an average of 99 cents. Once purchased, tracks are transferred to the consumer's iTunes music library and are automatically synched to the user's iPod portable player.
Content can also be burned to CD. Credit-card information is stored on file in the store's shopping-cart system so the consumer does not have to re-enter the information for each purchase. The offering is expected to be made available initially only to users of Apple computers.
As part of its announcement, Apple is expected to unveil content-licensing deals with all five major labels. The Apple service is also expected to feature music from high-profile acts whose repertoire has not previously been available for digital distribution.
Originally posted by Amorph
All I can say is: 1) They'd better offer more than the current acts published by the big five, and 2) there'd better be some way to get those songs onto a CD. I will be able to play songs that I've paid for in my car, or Steve gets no sale.
Precisely.
Originally posted by BuonRotto
Precisely.
Speaking as an independent artist, part of me is hoping that not only labels can join the party. The labels might not like getting bypassed, though.
And back catalogs are really important to me too, but I willing to be more patient with that.
EMI just forced that issue by offering their back catalog for download, so I actually don't think that'll be a problem.
EMI has a heck of a back catalog.
1. That I won't be able to burn a cd. (won't talk about it, been discussed extensively)
2. That the mp3s (or AAC whatever) will not be up to par quality wise with what i like to listen to...
I hate listening to 128 bit mp3. I want to be able to get AT LEAST 192 bit quality... I would even like the option of 256 or 320 quality, but if 192 happens, i'll be totally ok with it..
So, anyone have any thoughts on the sound quality that apple is going to bring?
Originally posted by Amorph
Just FYI, it's AAC. Advanced Audio Codec. It's billed as CD quality or better.
I don't think it's billed as better.
How can it be better than the source when you encode an AAC file from a CD?