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.
What's a "wav file quality" MP3? And why can't an AAC file be "wav file quality"?
You'd pay 99 cents to sit through a 50 megabyte download of a song?
Why can't you browse the store through a web browser? They should at least let everyone see what they have on sale, even if you have to use iTunes to pay...
I think it is a great move. Gets mac users not using OS X to take another look at moving up. Gets a PC user to possibly get on a mac to take a peek. It's all good.
Copyright sucks (more specifically abuse of copyrights by copyright "owners" sucks), that's pretty established. Copyright is what's preventing Apple from setting up music stores in non-US countries. They have to negotiate with the right-holders in Canada, Europe, England, Australia etc before they can set up shop there.
I am hoping to see a wider selection of artists and soundtracks
I`m sure there will be soon. My theory right now is that Apple did`nt want to put billions of songs on there just to find out its going to flop. 200k songs are plenty enough to test and see if the service is going to be a "hit" or not. After this is when they will probably expand the archive and release it to other countries and windows.
It's kind of amazing to me that they were able to keep the lid on the Apple Music Store. No details really leaked even though there were a lot of companies involved. 200,000 songs, album covers, AAC ripping from masters, etc.
I'm not too keen on all the partial albums and per song albums. I am only interested in whole albums. This just seems like some sort of scam to get people to pay a buck a song for a whole album.
A lot of missing content. If this is the support that the major labels gave Apple, I am not at all impressed. We'll see if the content diversifies over time. I hope so, because right now a friend with a decent sized cd collection and similar music tastes to me will have more to offer me than the music store.
I am not at all cool with the controls that have been put in place here. I'll be the first to admit that I can't tell the difference between 192K MP3 and CD. So I may buy a couple albums here and there from the music store. But I am very reluctant to build a music library around this system. Okay, AAC is good now. Where will it be in ten years? What kinds of compromises will I have to make in converting from AAC to a new standard? In particular decompression-compression artifacting seems to be a potentially big problem. In fact, that seems to be part of the way Apple sold the service to the distributors! Second, the ability to shift the music between computers seems to depend on Apple being around to handle the authorization issues. What happens if Apple goes under in the next 10 to 15 years? What happens if they lose interest in this music business? 10 years is a long time in this business, but I have many 10 year old CD's that I listen to frequently.
Given all this uncertainty, I think that 10 bucks a CD is a little much. How about 6-8 bucks? Anyways, I applaud Apple for showing a way in an industry run by idiots.
What happens when CD's are obsolete? What happens if you can't buy CD players anymore? What happens when you lose your job and have to sell all of your music to eat?
CDs are data rich, mostly unprotected, and an established format. I am confident that there will be a transition path from CDs to the next standard, whether it it is officially sanctioned or not.
Also, Apple has dumped many next-big-thing projects. In fact, other posts here suggest that this is only a one year trial run. Furthermore, any number of up-and-coming internet distribution businesses have gone under. While Apple is on a lot more solid ground than them, they most certainly are not invulnerable. Meanwhile, I have yet to be fired. Sure, it could happen tomorrow. If that happens I will have a lot easier time selling my CD's than AAC DRM protected songs.
Apple did a fantastic job with the musicstore, considering it's 2 days old now. If you look at what Apple attempted (create a legal Napster) then they're very much on target - with content being added everyday.
They did not try to stop people from buying CDs...just offer the instant gratification that you got from searching/downloading a song off Napster,etc.
They aren't trying to dupe "audiophiles" into downloading music (as if any true audiophiles were ex-Napster users...)
If you are willing to drop $1 on a 20oz. wild cherry pepsi, then paying for a song you've had stuck in your head to listen: on the commute home/on your dinner date that evening/at the gym/and bring back fond memories...whatever...i think it's reasonable
and if you have a beef w/ the price, $.65 goes to the label, so get on their case for lower prices!
According to the Mac maker's employment opportunities site, the company is seeking a Senior Software Engineer. His or her key responsibility: "Design and build Apple's newest Consumer Application, iTunes for Windows."
It seems they are actually going to build iTunes for PC.
Apple seeking coder to port iTunes to Windows
Sneaking suspicion that the Windows version will appear be before international support for mac users.
It's not all Apples fault though, I think that the greedy b@stard record labels are more to fault
I can't wait to give my credit card a good flexing when it is available...... One problem though, is that I'm after a copy of Strange Boutique by the Monochrome Set (have it on knackered vinyl) and they don't have it in the store!!!
Anyway, most people can't hear the difference in quality,
There is some discussion about this on Apple's help forums.
While it is hard to cut through the static of audiophile whingers, who wouldn't be caught dead listening to 128kbps audio, there are some sensible sounding people who claim that songs they rip from their own CDs with iTunes @ 128 AAC sound noticeably better than the same song bought from Apple. This should be the other way round assuming that Apple are using a pro encoder.
Interestingly this seems to be a variable effect with no real pattern. Some downloads sound great, some sound "terrible".
Could just be quality control gremlins and teething trouble.
--
Just to clarify, "terrible" in terms of this debate apparently means you can tell the difference between it and the original CD if you play them at the same time and switch between them. I'm more interested in whether the 'artifacts' draw attention to themselves when listened to during normal use. After all, I can clearly tell the difference between AAC@128 and CD. (The difference being that I will be able to fit 10x as much music on my iPod with AAC@128).
I'm not too keen on all the partial albums and per song albums. I am only interested in whole albums. This just seems like some sort of scam to get people to pay a buck a song for a whole album.
A lot of missing content. If this is the support that the major labels gave Apple, I am not at all impressed. We'll see if the content diversifies over time. I hope so, because right now a friend with a decent sized cd collection and similar music tastes to me will have more to offer me than the music store.
Give it some time. The music store has been running for, what, 2 days? They started with a fair collection of songs. There's no reason not to believe the line that the labels are testing the waters here as well. I think the music store's success will warm them up and encourage them to allow more full albums (and more artists).
Quote:
Okay, AAC is good now. Where will it be in ten years? What kinds of compromises will I have to make in converting from AAC to a new standard?
8-tracks and tapes were good at one point. Where are they now? Did you bother converting them to the new formats? Why concern yourself with converting AAC to a new standard? I'm not converting my mass of MP3s to AAC.
Quote:
Second, the ability to shift the music between computers seems to depend on Apple being around to handle the authorization issues. What happens if Apple goes under in the next 10 to 15 years? What happens if they lose interest in this music business? 10 years is a long time in this business, but I have many 10 year old CD's that I listen to frequently.
I'm not altogether sure Apple has to be around to handle authorization issues. Has anyone done any investigation into this? Besides, your concern has mainly to do with listening to music on potentially unauthorized computers. Your music, however, is free from control on iPods and CDs. If you burn a CD, you can still listen to it all you want if Apple goes under.
Personally I have a really good (bad?) ear for digital distortion. I can handle static on a cassette, but 'watery' digital audio just drives me nuts. So far 128 AAC hasn't bothered me, but I only have 3 songs. If they were some of the better 'rips' then that makes sense. Normally I listen to 160 KBS VBR MP3s and it's fine when your headphones are competing with traffic, train noises and other things like that.
It looks like my dreams of indie content in the iTMS may one day come true. This is from Dick Huey, Consulting VP of New Media for Beggars Group, :
"iTunes and Matador
Patrick asked me to respond to you on Matador's plans to be involved with the iTunes subscription service.
The short answer is Apple hasn't asked to license Matador music yet, and it's not because we were barking up the wrong tree for the last couple months. I think it was probably all Apple could do given the resources they made available for this project to roll it out with the Major content they had.
It's a drag that Apple chose to focus their huge publicity blast on artists that so desperately need promotion (Eminen?) but we're definitely interested in being involved and I hope it won't belong until you see Matador music up there as well. Meantime, we frequently get Matador music in the QuickTime features section, and there's always AVDeck (www.avdeck.com) to check out if you're jonesing for pre-release Mata-sounds in QuickTime format..."
Beggars Group also owns/represent 4AD, Beggars Banquet, XL and Mo' Wax records. Here's hoping it's not too long before Apple gets around to licensing music from these labels.
Comments
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.
What's a "wav file quality" MP3? And why can't an AAC file be "wav file quality"?
You'd pay 99 cents to sit through a 50 megabyte download of a song?
Seems like a dumb move to me.
Originally posted by JohnHenry
There are still mac users not on os X?
Of course. There are still some people using 9 out there.
Barto
I am hoping to see a wider selection of artists and soundtracks
I`m sure there will be soon. My theory right now is that Apple did`nt want to put billions of songs on there just to find out its going to flop. 200k songs are plenty enough to test and see if the service is going to be a "hit" or not. After this is when they will probably expand the archive and release it to other countries and windows.
I'm not too keen on all the partial albums and per song albums. I am only interested in whole albums. This just seems like some sort of scam to get people to pay a buck a song for a whole album.
A lot of missing content. If this is the support that the major labels gave Apple, I am not at all impressed. We'll see if the content diversifies over time. I hope so, because right now a friend with a decent sized cd collection and similar music tastes to me will have more to offer me than the music store.
I am not at all cool with the controls that have been put in place here. I'll be the first to admit that I can't tell the difference between 192K MP3 and CD. So I may buy a couple albums here and there from the music store. But I am very reluctant to build a music library around this system. Okay, AAC is good now. Where will it be in ten years? What kinds of compromises will I have to make in converting from AAC to a new standard? In particular decompression-compression artifacting seems to be a potentially big problem. In fact, that seems to be part of the way Apple sold the service to the distributors! Second, the ability to shift the music between computers seems to depend on Apple being around to handle the authorization issues. What happens if Apple goes under in the next 10 to 15 years? What happens if they lose interest in this music business? 10 years is a long time in this business, but I have many 10 year old CD's that I listen to frequently.
Given all this uncertainty, I think that 10 bucks a CD is a little much. How about 6-8 bucks? Anyways, I applaud Apple for showing a way in an industry run by idiots.
So many questions. So little time.
Also, Apple has dumped many next-big-thing projects. In fact, other posts here suggest that this is only a one year trial run. Furthermore, any number of up-and-coming internet distribution businesses have gone under. While Apple is on a lot more solid ground than them, they most certainly are not invulnerable. Meanwhile, I have yet to be fired. Sure, it could happen tomorrow. If that happens I will have a lot easier time selling my CD's than AAC DRM protected songs.
They did not try to stop people from buying CDs...just offer the instant gratification that you got from searching/downloading a song off Napster,etc.
They aren't trying to dupe "audiophiles" into downloading music (as if any true audiophiles were ex-Napster users...)
If you are willing to drop $1 on a 20oz. wild cherry pepsi, then paying for a song you've had stuck in your head to listen: on the commute home/on your dinner date that evening/at the gym/and bring back fond memories...whatever...i think it's reasonable
and if you have a beef w/ the price, $.65 goes to the label, so get on their case for lower prices!
Apple seeking coder to port iTunes to Windows
According to the Mac maker's employment opportunities site, the company is seeking a Senior Software Engineer. His or her key responsibility: "Design and build Apple's newest Consumer Application, iTunes for Windows."
It seems they are actually going to build iTunes for PC.
Apple seeking coder to port iTunes to Windows
Sneaking suspicion that the Windows version will appear be before international support for mac users.
It's not all Apples fault though, I think that the greedy b@stard record labels are more to fault
I can't wait to give my credit card a good flexing when it is available...... One problem though, is that I'm after a copy of Strange Boutique by the Monochrome Set (have it on knackered vinyl) and they don't have it in the store!!!
Originally posted by tonton
Anyway, most people can't hear the difference in quality,
There is some discussion about this on Apple's help forums.
While it is hard to cut through the static of audiophile whingers, who wouldn't be caught dead listening to 128kbps audio, there are some sensible sounding people who claim that songs they rip from their own CDs with iTunes @ 128 AAC sound noticeably better than the same song bought from Apple. This should be the other way round assuming that Apple are using a pro encoder.
Interestingly this seems to be a variable effect with no real pattern. Some downloads sound great, some sound "terrible".
Could just be quality control gremlins and teething trouble.
--
Just to clarify, "terrible" in terms of this debate apparently means you can tell the difference between it and the original CD if you play them at the same time and switch between them. I'm more interested in whether the 'artifacts' draw attention to themselves when listened to during normal use. After all, I can clearly tell the difference between AAC@128 and CD. (The difference being that I will be able to fit 10x as much music on my iPod with AAC@128).
Originally posted by failedmathematician
I'm not too keen on all the partial albums and per song albums. I am only interested in whole albums. This just seems like some sort of scam to get people to pay a buck a song for a whole album.
A lot of missing content. If this is the support that the major labels gave Apple, I am not at all impressed. We'll see if the content diversifies over time. I hope so, because right now a friend with a decent sized cd collection and similar music tastes to me will have more to offer me than the music store.
Give it some time. The music store has been running for, what, 2 days? They started with a fair collection of songs. There's no reason not to believe the line that the labels are testing the waters here as well. I think the music store's success will warm them up and encourage them to allow more full albums (and more artists).
Okay, AAC is good now. Where will it be in ten years? What kinds of compromises will I have to make in converting from AAC to a new standard?
8-tracks and tapes were good at one point. Where are they now? Did you bother converting them to the new formats? Why concern yourself with converting AAC to a new standard? I'm not converting my mass of MP3s to AAC.
Second, the ability to shift the music between computers seems to depend on Apple being around to handle the authorization issues. What happens if Apple goes under in the next 10 to 15 years? What happens if they lose interest in this music business? 10 years is a long time in this business, but I have many 10 year old CD's that I listen to frequently.
I'm not altogether sure Apple has to be around to handle authorization issues. Has anyone done any investigation into this? Besides, your concern has mainly to do with listening to music on potentially unauthorized computers. Your music, however, is free from control on iPods and CDs. If you burn a CD, you can still listen to it all you want if Apple goes under.
"iTunes and Matador
Patrick asked me to respond to you on Matador's plans to be involved with the iTunes subscription service.
The short answer is Apple hasn't asked to license Matador music yet, and it's not because we were barking up the wrong tree for the last couple months. I think it was probably all Apple could do given the resources they made available for this project to roll it out with the Major content they had.
It's a drag that Apple chose to focus their huge publicity blast on artists that so desperately need promotion (Eminen?) but we're definitely interested in being involved and I hope it won't belong until you see Matador music up there as well. Meantime, we frequently get Matador music in the QuickTime features section, and there's always AVDeck (www.avdeck.com) to check out if you're jonesing for pre-release Mata-sounds in QuickTime format..."
Beggars Group also owns/represent 4AD, Beggars Banquet, XL and Mo' Wax records. Here's hoping it's not too long before Apple gets around to licensing music from these labels.