seriously though, 7500 songs is not a whole lot for someone who's been buying music for a while. my iTunes collection is around 2500 songs (all legal, btw), and i would consider my CD collection to be quite small.
I'm cool with the new service. I'll use it on occasion. I'm sure Apple will make some cash, thus making the AAPL holders happy. Here is how I heard the $.99 will be distributed:
There's a parallel between Apple's music service and Phish's live download service. The same "Why should I pay for it if I can get it for free?" argument applies there, too. If only Apple would take a cue from Phish and offer people two tiers of service?higher-quality audio at a higher price, plus lower-quality mp3s on the cheap. Plus printable CD art. The major difference between the two is that Phish still encourages fans to circulate homemade recordings of live shows. The band and Elektra know that even the nicest-sounding audience recording isn't going to top the sound quality of a soundboard > Powerbook > .shn transfer, and an average turnaround time of 48 hours is hard to beat.
Why should I pay when I can get an audience recording for free?
Primary advantages of Live Phish Downloads over audience recordings are: pristine soundboard quality, faster and more reliable downloading and quick turnaround. In most cases, shows will be available for download within forty-eight hours. Each show is carefully indexed and comes with printable booklets (containing liner notes), tray inlays and CD labels. The files are served by a robust delivery network capable of serving thousands of simultaneous downloads, ensuring the fastest and most reliable download experience for the user. We also offer customer service via email to help sort out any problems that may arise during the download process. That being said, audience taping has always been and will continue to be a defining element of the Phish experience.
Live Phish Downloads offers an alternative, convenient route to obtaining live recordings and is in no way intended to supplant or undermine the taping community.
I think some one should do an honest poll. I`m willing to be that as high as 90% of the people bitching about the price do not come by all of their music legally. Personally I love it.(Though I`m sure their are some people who get all of their music leagally and still think its to pricey)
As been said before how often do you buy a CD and you love every song on it? Sure there are times. But I would much rather have a few MP3`s from that CD I like already to throw on my iPod or CD, and on top of that I don`t have a huge collection of half burned out CD`s floating around my room.
Yeah, a lot of the CDs I buy for one or two good songs. The recording industry likes that but they'll have to learn that they can make money by doing other things, not just ripping people off with price-setting and the like.
Anyway, I was disappointed that Metallica has nothing in the music service, but that no-talent ass-clown Michael Bolten gets plenty of space... and I really do think he's a no-talent ass-clown, I'm not just quoting Office Space (although I do that a lot, there have been a number of Office Space references recently).
EDIT: Oh yeah, and no Beatles... Michael Bolton w/o Beatles is a disgrace... at least there's BNL.
Did a check up against my iTunes library and only one out of four songs are present. Those bands that are perhaps only got one album ("Their first album on a major label and the last one before they split up")
I was disappointed that Metallica has nothing in the music service, but that no-talent ass-clown Michael Bolten gets plenty of space...
I've always thought it was so strange that "We're all about the fans, f**k the money hungry suits" Metallica came out so strong during the Napster brouhaha while many obviously corporate artists kept a lower profile.
Yeah, I was thinking about the Napster case when my Metallica search turned up nothing. There's a few things in there I might like, but not a whole lot.
Audiophiles wil never be satisfied, it's part of the game.
One hardly needs to be an audiophile to realize 16000 Hz through 22000 Hz are missing in a song. Look at the graphs I plotted. There's quite a bit of data missing. All I want is near CD quality...you know, near what we used to get the old fashioned way? $1 a song is pretty close to retail. I just want a nice pristine copy...is that too much to ask?
I think the site is clean and well organized but I will not spend money on data-compressed garbage. Sure I listen to MP3's etc after I have a good copy I can play on my home system that is at least wav file quality. I am willing to pay $.99 per song if it were wav format but this data compressed garbage dream on apple.
I will gladly drive to my Virgin Records and enjoy the real store and buy real CD's
If apple would have set this thing up where one could "choose" imagine that..... "choose" the format and keep the $.99 per song price I would use the site to make purchases very very often.
Apple has a dumbed down customer in mind however.
Reminds me of windows. I thought Apple was all about Quality.
Data-compressed files are not worthy of the retail price apple is asking. Period.
Dumbed down kids feel free to prove me wrong. Apple depends on you.
I agree. I listen to MP3s all the time. But when I copy CDs I do it 1:1 and THEN make a MP3 copy for my iBook*.
The new service gives me the ability to get just that song that have been inside my head and I just found out what was instead of going to the shop (or gemm, ebay or amazon) the next morning. The convienience is a plus, a huge plus. But the only one (plus of course the price. But that doesn´t really matter that much since I copy the CD if I can´t afford it).
Now the problem is that the Store doesn´t have those song described above. They are seldom from the big five, at least not those I listen to.
*Copying music is legal here as long as you do it yourself and it is from an original. CDs borrowed by friends or the library and your own computer and you can burn away.
128 kbit aac is abominable. Personally, I think the music should be distributed 256 kbit for acceptable audio quality. Apple should be using aacPlus too. I'm not sure what the max bitrate for aacPlus, but I think somewhere in the vicinity of 160 kbit aacPlus would be good enough.
AAC+ is designed for low bitrates (i.e. < 96kbps) ideal for streaming applications. It adds SBR to AAC in the same way MP3Pro adds it to MP3.
Both are worse than the originals--edit: that is, AAC (not +) and MP3 (not pro) respectively--at higher bitrates ( > 96kbps).
Think of it like a low gear, it will help you get traction at lower speeds but it won't increase your top speed.
It's a cool tech and would help the ipod increase its capacity if songs were ripped specifically for portable use but wouldn't be appropriate for iTunes Music Store downloads.
I think the site is clean and well organized but I will not spend money on data-compressed garbage. Sure I listen to MP3's etc after I have a good copy I can play on my home system that is at least wav file quality. I am willing to pay $.99 per song if it were wav format but this data compressed garbage dream on apple.
I will gladly drive to my Virgin Records and enjoy the real store and buy real CD's
If apple would have set this thing up where one could "choose" imagine that..... "choose" the format and keep the $.99 per song price I would use the site to make purchases very very often.
Apple has a dumbed down customer in mind however.
Reminds me of windows. I thought Apple was all about Quality.
Data-compressed files are not worthy of the retail price apple is asking. Period.
Dumbed down kids feel free to prove me wrong. Apple depends on you.
Fellowship
Hmm, where to begin....
DO YOU HAVE ANY DVD'S???? You do realize the audio and video in DVD's is highly compressed right? and do you also understand WAV files? real audio cd's are not wav files, wav files are for Windows Audio/Video. but again, digital cable, directv, dish tv, DVD, are ALL compressed.
The quality of mp3/AAC/other compressed formats depends very much on the encoding process. If Apple has access to masters (often of much higher quality than actual shipped CD's (often 24 bit, 96khz)) and is encoding the tracks with higher quality encoders than is available to the public (and therefore requirering more processor power than is acceptable for personal ripping), it is possible that this would lead to higher quality than if it is ripped directly from a CD with iTunes. Yes?
It has to do with the realities of the music business. It's not us vs. you. The fact that Apple got the 5 major labels to agree to this program is amazing. At the moment artists get different royalties based on country of origin. I would guess that when the music service is localized by country, perhaps then you'll be able to buy product... and some of the product will be more in tune with localized artists of the country of origin as well.
Don't you have artists in Germany that don't have large followings in the U.S. or say, Japan? What I'm trying to say is that to be a better service in your country the Music Store needs to take those things into consideration I believe.
Of course. For example, by deciding that Tom Waits is not so popular in Russia and excluding his repertoire from Russia.
Quote:
Originally posted by Mandricard & InactionMan
No Beatles. No Rolling Stones.
No Beastie Boys?
That's what I'm talking about. Who needs Beatles? To hell with Rollings! Beastie Boys don't sing in Russian, so we'll censor this title out. Do I have the right to listen to Beastie Boys or not, damn it? You say the catalog will get larger? Of course, it will. Just gimme the phone number of the god I should pray to.
Quote:
I think you'll see your own store (just as you have a local Apple Store website).
I am sorry, MacsRGood4U, but the pathetic state of Apple.ru suggests that it's never going to happen at all. Either Apple.us gets theirs together or we won't see anything. Point.
Gene Steinberg in his Mac Night Owl site reports that Apple's deal with the labels is only for one year. It is in effect an "experiment". I spoke to a friend at one of the labels and he told me that the agreement signed was only for the U.S.
If things go well - and that's a big question mark, then the labels will negotiate seperate deals for the different territories. Monies earned from the music store will go to the individual companies in each country. Although many here don't seem to understand it, there are rights issues and even song copyright issues for each country and artist.
Comments
Originally posted by coreysme
Introducing the new 30Gb iPod only $7924.00
$499.00+7500 songs *$0.99 per song= $7924.00
Introducing the new Sony Discman only $10,550
$50 + $10, 500 (700 CDs x $15 ea) = $10,550
seriously though, 7500 songs is not a whole lot for someone who's been buying music for a while. my iTunes collection is around 2500 songs (all legal, btw), and i would consider my CD collection to be quite small.
$.35 for Apple per song.
$.63 for the record company per song.
$.01 for the artist per song.
From the Live Phish FAQ
Why should I pay when I can get an audience recording for free?
Primary advantages of Live Phish Downloads over audience recordings are: pristine soundboard quality, faster and more reliable downloading and quick turnaround. In most cases, shows will be available for download within forty-eight hours. Each show is carefully indexed and comes with printable booklets (containing liner notes), tray inlays and CD labels. The files are served by a robust delivery network capable of serving thousands of simultaneous downloads, ensuring the fastest and most reliable download experience for the user. We also offer customer service via email to help sort out any problems that may arise during the download process. That being said, audience taping has always been and will continue to be a defining element of the Phish experience.
Live Phish Downloads offers an alternative, convenient route to obtaining live recordings and is in no way intended to supplant or undermine the taping community.
As been said before how often do you buy a CD and you love every song on it? Sure there are times. But I would much rather have a few MP3`s from that CD I like already to throw on my iPod or CD, and on top of that I don`t have a huge collection of half burned out CD`s floating around my room.
Just my 2¢
Anyway, I was disappointed that Metallica has nothing in the music service, but that no-talent ass-clown Michael Bolten gets plenty of space... and I really do think he's a no-talent ass-clown, I'm not just quoting Office Space (although I do that a lot, there have been a number of Office Space references recently).
EDIT: Oh yeah, and no Beatles... Michael Bolton w/o Beatles is a disgrace... at least there's BNL.
Did a check up against my iTunes library and only one out of four songs are present. Those bands that are perhaps only got one album ("Their first album on a major label and the last one before they split up")
I've always thought it was so strange that "We're all about the fans, f**k the money hungry suits" Metallica came out so strong during the Napster brouhaha while many obviously corporate artists kept a lower profile.
Jeff
Originally posted by serrano
Audiophiles wil never be satisfied, it's part of the game.
One hardly needs to be an audiophile to realize 16000 Hz through 22000 Hz are missing in a song. Look at the graphs I plotted. There's quite a bit of data missing. All I want is near CD quality...you know, near what we used to get the old fashioned way? $1 a song is pretty close to retail. I just want a nice pristine copy...is that too much to ask?
*if you can tell the difference, then you're probably an audiophile
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
But the reason they're filtered out is because most* people cannot tell the difference. Personally, I can't.
*if you can tell the difference, then you're probably an audiophile
precisely. it's generally accepted that human hearing drops off at aroun 17 kHz
I think the site is clean and well organized but I will not spend money on data-compressed garbage. Sure I listen to MP3's etc after I have a good copy I can play on my home system that is at least wav file quality. I am willing to pay $.99 per song if it were wav format but this data compressed garbage dream on apple.
I will gladly drive to my Virgin Records and enjoy the real store and buy real CD's
If apple would have set this thing up where one could "choose" imagine that..... "choose" the format and keep the $.99 per song price I would use the site to make purchases very very often.
Apple has a dumbed down customer in mind however.
Reminds me of windows. I thought Apple was all about Quality.
Data-compressed files are not worthy of the retail price apple is asking. Period.
Dumbed down kids feel free to prove me wrong. Apple depends on you.
Fellowship
Originally posted by pesi
precisely. it's generally accepted that human hearing drops off at aroun 17 kHz
I've read that too. I guess I'm a mutant.
I agree. I listen to MP3s all the time. But when I copy CDs I do it 1:1 and THEN make a MP3 copy for my iBook*.
The new service gives me the ability to get just that song that have been inside my head and I just found out what was instead of going to the shop (or gemm, ebay or amazon) the next morning. The convienience is a plus, a huge plus. But the only one (plus of course the price. But that doesn´t really matter that much since I copy the CD if I can´t afford it).
Now the problem is that the Store doesn´t have those song described above. They are seldom from the big five, at least not those I listen to.
*Copying music is legal here as long as you do it yourself and it is from an original. CDs borrowed by friends or the library and your own computer and you can burn away.
Originally posted by Eugene
128 kbit aac is abominable. Personally, I think the music should be distributed 256 kbit for acceptable audio quality. Apple should be using aacPlus too. I'm not sure what the max bitrate for aacPlus, but I think somewhere in the vicinity of 160 kbit aacPlus would be good enough.
AAC+ is designed for low bitrates (i.e. < 96kbps) ideal for streaming applications. It adds SBR to AAC in the same way MP3Pro adds it to MP3.
Both are worse than the originals--edit: that is, AAC (not +) and MP3 (not pro) respectively--at higher bitrates ( > 96kbps).
Think of it like a low gear, it will help you get traction at lower speeds but it won't increase your top speed.
It's a cool tech and would help the ipod increase its capacity if songs were ripped specifically for portable use but wouldn't be appropriate for iTunes Music Store downloads.
Originally posted by FellowshipChurch iBook
Data Compression how fun....
I think the site is clean and well organized but I will not spend money on data-compressed garbage. Sure I listen to MP3's etc after I have a good copy I can play on my home system that is at least wav file quality. I am willing to pay $.99 per song if it were wav format but this data compressed garbage dream on apple.
I will gladly drive to my Virgin Records and enjoy the real store and buy real CD's
If apple would have set this thing up where one could "choose" imagine that..... "choose" the format and keep the $.99 per song price I would use the site to make purchases very very often.
Apple has a dumbed down customer in mind however.
Reminds me of windows. I thought Apple was all about Quality.
Data-compressed files are not worthy of the retail price apple is asking. Period.
Dumbed down kids feel free to prove me wrong. Apple depends on you.
Fellowship
Hmm, where to begin....
DO YOU HAVE ANY DVD'S???? You do realize the audio and video in DVD's is highly compressed right? and do you also understand WAV files? real audio cd's are not wav files, wav files are for Windows Audio/Video. but again, digital cable, directv, dish tv, DVD, are ALL compressed.
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
It has to do with the realities of the music business. It's not us vs. you. The fact that Apple got the 5 major labels to agree to this program is amazing. At the moment artists get different royalties based on country of origin. I would guess that when the music service is localized by country, perhaps then you'll be able to buy product... and some of the product will be more in tune with localized artists of the country of origin as well.
Wait, how's that? If I can go to a CD shop in Moscow and officially buy any CD available, including those from US-only (as opposed to international monsters) labels, I assume they don't have anything against these CDs being sold in Russia. Right? If the shop legally exists, I assume that Russian laws are in agreement with both international and US laws on this part. So there should be no legal issues. Then again, regardless of royalties to artists, their CDs are exported to Russia obviously through consent of their labels. Now can you explain to me if the form in which they are exported matters? I mean physical form vs electronic. <rant>It just maddens me to think that my damn credit card cannot buy what I legally want. What the ?ü©k is this?! Why doesn't this damn PetitionOnline.com accept my vote?! I don't want localized download service, I don't want local mainstream 'artists', I want to be able to spend my money the way I like! Damn. </rant>
Originally posted by MacsRGood4U
Don't you have artists in Germany that don't have large followings in the U.S. or say, Japan? What I'm trying to say is that to be a better service in your country the Music Store needs to take those things into consideration I believe.
Of course. For example, by deciding that Tom Waits is not so popular in Russia and excluding his repertoire from Russia.
Originally posted by Mandricard & InactionMan
No Beatles. No Rolling Stones.
No Beastie Boys?
That's what I'm talking about. Who needs Beatles? To hell with Rollings! Beastie Boys don't sing in Russian, so we'll censor this title out. Do I have the right to listen to Beastie Boys or not, damn it? You say the catalog will get larger? Of course, it will. Just gimme the phone number of the god I should pray to.
I think you'll see your own store (just as you have a local Apple Store website).
I am sorry, MacsRGood4U, but the pathetic state of Apple.ru suggests that it's never going to happen at all. Either Apple.us gets theirs together or we won't see anything. Point.
If things go well - and that's a big question mark, then the labels will negotiate seperate deals for the different territories. Monies earned from the music store will go to the individual companies in each country. Although many here don't seem to understand it, there are rights issues and even song copyright issues for each country and artist.