Hopefully they'll soon add an MP3 option to the store - along with Windows compatability. Right now it's nice for hardcore Mac users, but it's very limited because it can only play on Macs or on Macintosh iPods.
well, Steve said the service would be available to Windoze before the end of the year, so that point is taken care of.
as for MP3... never ever gonna happen. one of the only reasons the store is able to exist in the first place is because the files are NOT MP3
Okay... so how do you play the music you've bought on something other than a Mac or an iPod? Will other MP3 players become AAC compatible? Will Apple even let their grubby little hands off the AAC standard? Maybe they'll charge enough per AAC-compatible music player that no company will adopt it...
Okay... so how do you play the music you've bought on something other than a Mac or an iPod? Will other MP3 players become AAC compatible? Will Apple even let their grubby little hands off the AAC standard? Maybe they'll charge enough per AAC-compatible music player that no company will adopt it...
The way I just did it. Burn a cd, then convert it to mp3. Other than that, I can't think of a way (or did you miss half this thread?? ).
SJ specifically said that the iPod was the only music player capable of playing these things back. But it's really the only player out in force on the mac side anyway. Maybe when they release this for windows, there will be more options.
Okay... so how do you play the music you've bought on something other than a Mac or an iPod? Will other MP3 players become AAC compatible? Will Apple even let their grubby little hands off the AAC standard? Maybe they'll charge enough per AAC-compatible music player that no company will adopt it...
um... Apple doesn't own AAC so they wouldn't be charging other companies to use it...
other companies will make their products AAC compatible if they're smart. if not, they'll be left in the dust.
Gad. I guess you can't convert to AIFF either, then. It's either burn to CD or nothing. That stinx. Try your original method of burning to CD then ripping back to MP3. Maybe the Fortune article was right! Sux for you, Torifile, if it's true. Better get that iPod and casette adapter for your car then...
Well, the cd to mp3 conversion worked and it was a neglible difference in quality (as far as I could tell; see a couple posts up - you really should read what's posted before you ). Luckily for me, if I don't want to do this, my deck has an aux in jack so I just get a male/male 1/8" stereo jack and I'm set. Hell, maybe I'll leave my current 5g ipod in my car and get one of the new nifty ones. (Yeah right. My fiancee would kill me....)
A "channel" in this context refers to an audio channel output. For example, stereo is a two-channel implementation (left and right), and monaural is a single-channel implementation. The AAC specification supports up to 48 full-frequency range audio channels. Per-channel pricing allows differentiation between simple mono or stereo products and multichannel home theater products.
Interesting no? Multichannel AAC files are possible. Geegawd 48 channels...I'd love to see that Encoder and Decoder.
Okay so AAC is an open standard, it would require only an effort by the companies that make MP3 players to add it... they wouldn't have to buy anything. That's good.
I suppose I was way off with my posts... I did read the previous ones but I must have misunderstood.
Luca ...no problem. Right now we have the cart and we're waiting for the Horse to arrive.
Digital Music for the foreseeable future is a 3 pony race.
1. MP3
2. WM
3. AAC
The rest are fringe contenders
WM and AAC have the advantage of Multichannel support. If I was the industry I'd be looking to take advantage of that feature. 5.1 systems can be had for next to nothing. Surround Sound Audio can be the thing that brings the masses back. Kazaa cannot compete in this arena.
Eventually I'd like to see Apple offer higher bitrates to appeas those who have to have that nth degree of accuracy. Simply offer a higher rez version for a wee bit more dosh. That will keep the natives bloody satisfied.
Can you blame people? The RIAA has everyone so jaded about "legit" digital music, that we can't quite believe anyone, even Apple, is doing it RIGHT. Being able to do AAC->AIFF->mp3 clinches it for me. It's the perfect balance between consumer and copyright holder. There's nothing wrong with the service except that the price could stand to come down a bit. And I'm sure it will. Apple rocks. Really. This. Is. Huge.
what you will have to do, is convert the AAC files to MP3, but I think the reason they say they wont sound as good, is because the AAC codec sounds better than the MP3 codec, so you will lose some quality.
Could you also just use Audio Hijack and get an aiff file out and then use QT6.2 to convert that AIFF back into a DRM free M4A? It may sound a little tweaky but I think it is so lowtech it just might work.
Note: Initializing the drive will not deauthorize the computer. If you will be initializing the drive, deauthorize the computer first, then initialize the drive.
All that the protection means is that apple and the music companies can pretend that they are doing something to stop the copying of the songs.
Anyone that really wants a copy of a song in mp3 format to use on their second computer (which just might be a PC), will just have to invest in a half decent sound card, and use a normal audio cable and re-record the sound on the second PC... Hell if your not using an iMac you can prolly get digital cards and use and optical cable - that should give as good a result as anyone needs.
My question is this, where are the list of authorised computers stored? In the file? If so what happens when "god forbid" my iMac bursts into flames and I have to restore my aac files from a DVD backup? Who has the authority to say that my new iMac is a trusted computer?
My question is this, where are the list of authorized computers stored? In the file? If so what happens when "god forbid" my iMac bursts into flames and I have to restore my aac files from a DVD backup? Who has the authority to say that my new iMac is a trusted computer?
as long as you have the songs... you "register" the new mac with the iTunes music store and all the music you bought will work...
BUT that is only if you have a backup...
Quote:
Be sure to make regular backups of your music files (in your iTunes Music folder) by copying them to an external hard disk or other media. If your hard disk becomes damaged or you lose any of the music you've purchased, you'll have to reimport all your songs and buy any purchased music again to rebuild your library.
what would be killer is if apple would allow you to restore any track you have bought from them. but thats not how it works now...
if it worked this way now I'm sure noone would have a problem with prices as they currently stand...
First torifile goes (not bitching) on how inconvinient it is to go from AAC to mp3, most people don't understand and jump on the poor guy, then he concludes by saying that he's got aux in jack in his car audio... lol,
Then you start to worry about authorizing computers, etc and what will happen if your computer burns....
Guys, think, why should apple be responsible for making backups for you? and then lets say if you do have backup and your comp burns, don't you think that there must be a way to restore few grand worth of music to your comp?
I believe apple thought of that while designing iTunes 4.
And then issue of adding mp3 to itunes store....
I T W I L L N E V E R H A P P E N !
Apple will provide winblows users with some ability to play aac files either by adding functionality to jukebox soft, or perhaps releasing iTunes for win.
The whole idea is that you have an integrated system of downloading music , burning cd, and listening your music on portable device (iPod). It was designed with iPod in mind and it will stay this way. If your portable player does not support aac, your are out of luck, maybe when iTunes Store becomes popular enough you will get aac support.
Apple had to compromise to make it work. IMO it worked out great!
It just needs time, music collection has to expand, and it will, win support has to be there and it will be there, give it time.
The copy protection is posturing by Apple to appease the record companies, nothing more.
Consider the following...
1. It's simply laughable to put a 10 burn limit on unshuffled playlists when one can simply make a disc image of the resulting burnt CD then burn an endless number of copies in toast if their business is to sell pirated CDS.
2. If AAC can be burnt to AIFF then all that is required is a third party encoder that recognizes and accomodates the subtle sound quality compromises AAC produces in an AIFF file in order not to amplify them during a re-encode. In short, if the AIFF sounds good then a smart encoder can make the mp3 sound good.
3. Eventually the copy protection flags in the purchased AAC files will be identified and someone will come out with a "cleaner". I'm amazed one hasn't been produced already considering that you can rip unflagged AACs from your own CDs then compare the resulting files to the purchased ones (or just go purchased AAC -> AIF -> back to clean AAC).
Jobs isn't stupid enough to think DRM can work for long. He realizes that the only winning features of an online music service will be convenience, quality assurance, and savings on distribution costs.
99 cents a track will work for a little bit, then they will have to cut prices to something reasonable like 10-25 cents. The mental imange which comes to mind is when someone is playing music on the street and you toss a coin into their hat in appreciation. They're musicians, they're not curing cancer and, frankly, they're way overpaid.
Guys, think, why should apple be responsible for making backups for you? and then lets say if you do have backup and your comp burns, don't you think that there must be a way to restore few grand worth of music to your comp?
I believe apple thought of that while designing iTunes 4.
care to elaborate? you seem to be contradicting yourself, but I think I am just misunderstanding you... Do you agree that Apple should allow you to download the songs again?
Nord, while I agree with you... keep it down man! we don't want the fact that the DRM is bogus to get outside of Steve's RDF! Man! want to get Apple in trouble?
The record companies can choke on it, they probably entered into a contract with Apple...
99 cents a track will work for a little bit, then they will have to cut prices to something reasonable like 10-25 cents. The mental imange which comes to mind is when someone is playing music on the street and you toss a coin into their hat in appreciation. They're musicians, they're not curing cancer and, frankly, they're way overpaid.
I agree. You know what would be really cool is if Apple allowed people to send them songs they recorded and then charged a quarter for them and gave 20 to the "artist." Or maybe allowed you to set your own price. In effect Apple could become a distributer for any band without a label. Since the I doubt even Eminem is making 20 cents per song on the CDs he sells, this might even catch on among people who do have labels. I just made up the prices here but I bet with the right pricing Apple could become Universal without having to buy them.
The copy protection is posturing by Apple to appease the record companies, nothing more.
That's overstating it a bit. All that copy protection has to do is keep honest people honest. It's not at all hard to figure out how to pick the average lock, and the information is out there for anyone willing to look, but locks are still widely used and effective.
If Apple succeeds in showing the industry that foolproof copy protection is unnecessary as well as infuriating and essentially impossible, they'll have scored a huge victory for everyone, including the labels (and movie studios).
Quote:
They're musicians, they're not curing cancer and, frankly, they're way overpaid.
An artist who has a million-selling album is lucky to make $20,000 off of it with the standard contract, when all's said and done. Those artists that don't manage a million-seller, which is to say almost all of them, are lucky to be able to make a living doing what they're doing. All of the ones who do manage do so by touring constantly, selling merchandise, and selling CDs at live shows, where they get a much bigger cut. (Even there, the majors include as part of their contract a clause that requires artists to buy tour CDs at special, higher prices so that the cut isn't that much bigger. Still, $1 a CD is much better than the going rate.)
The labels are currently getting 65 cents per song from Apple. Almost none of that is going to the artist. You could sell songs for 25 cents each and still pay artists two or three times more than they're getting now just by cutting out the middleman. But that's probably not going to happen any time soon. The middlemen are big, and they do fill a role even if they do so inefficiently and greedily.
Comments
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Hopefully they'll soon add an MP3 option to the store - along with Windows compatability. Right now it's nice for hardcore Mac users, but it's very limited because it can only play on Macs or on Macintosh iPods.
well, Steve said the service would be available to Windoze before the end of the year, so that point is taken care of.
as for MP3... never ever gonna happen. one of the only reasons the store is able to exist in the first place is because the files are NOT MP3
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Okay... so how do you play the music you've bought on something other than a Mac or an iPod? Will other MP3 players become AAC compatible? Will Apple even let their grubby little hands off the AAC standard? Maybe they'll charge enough per AAC-compatible music player that no company will adopt it...
The way I just did it. Burn a cd, then convert it to mp3. Other than that, I can't think of a way (or did you miss half this thread??
SJ specifically said that the iPod was the only music player capable of playing these things back. But it's really the only player out in force on the mac side anyway. Maybe when they release this for windows, there will be more options.
Originally posted by Luca Rescigno
Okay... so how do you play the music you've bought on something other than a Mac or an iPod? Will other MP3 players become AAC compatible? Will Apple even let their grubby little hands off the AAC standard? Maybe they'll charge enough per AAC-compatible music player that no company will adopt it...
um... Apple doesn't own AAC so they wouldn't be charging other companies to use it...
other companies will make their products AAC compatible if they're smart. if not, they'll be left in the dust.
Originally posted by tonton
OH NOOOoooo! You're right!
Gad. I guess you can't convert to AIFF either, then. It's either burn to CD or nothing. That stinx. Try your original method of burning to CD then ripping back to MP3. Maybe the Fortune article was right! Sux for you, Torifile, if it's true. Better get that iPod and casette adapter for your car then...
Well, the cd to mp3 conversion worked and it was a neglible difference in quality (as far as I could tell; see a couple posts up - you really should read what's posted before you
Open Standard for anyone to license.
What do you mean by per-channel pricing?
A "channel" in this context refers to an audio channel output. For example, stereo is a two-channel implementation (left and right), and monaural is a single-channel implementation. The AAC specification supports up to 48 full-frequency range audio channels. Per-channel pricing allows differentiation between simple mono or stereo products and multichannel home theater products.
Interesting no? Multichannel AAC files are possible. Geegawd 48 channels...I'd love to see that Encoder and Decoder.
I suppose I was way off with my posts... I did read the previous ones but I must have misunderstood.
Digital Music for the foreseeable future is a 3 pony race.
1. MP3
2. WM
3. AAC
The rest are fringe contenders
WM and AAC have the advantage of Multichannel support. If I was the industry I'd be looking to take advantage of that feature. 5.1 systems can be had for next to nothing. Surround Sound Audio can be the thing that brings the masses back. Kazaa cannot compete in this arena.
Eventually I'd like to see Apple offer higher bitrates to appeas those who have to have that nth degree of accuracy. Simply offer a higher rez version for a wee bit more dosh. That will keep the natives bloody satisfied.
Originally posted by mrmister
Overreacting seems to be the order of the day.
Can you blame people? The RIAA has everyone so jaded about "legit" digital music, that we can't quite believe anyone, even Apple, is doing it RIGHT. Being able to do AAC->AIFF->mp3 clinches it for me. It's the perfect balance between consumer and copyright holder. There's nothing wrong with the service except that the price could stand to come down a bit. And I'm sure it will. Apple rocks. Really. This. Is. Huge.
Originally posted by The General
what you will have to do, is convert the AAC files to MP3, but I think the reason they say they wont sound as good, is because the AAC codec sounds better than the MP3 codec, so you will lose some quality.
Could you also just use Audio Hijack and get an aiff file out and then use QT6.2 to convert that AIFF back into a DRM free M4A? It may sound a little tweaky but I think it is so lowtech it just might work.
A@ron
Note: Initializing the drive will not deauthorize the computer. If you will be initializing the drive, deauthorize the computer first, then initialize the drive.
And this is really interesting
Harness the power of Open Firmware?
Anyone that really wants a copy of a song in mp3 format to use on their second computer (which just might be a PC), will just have to invest in a half decent sound card, and use a normal audio cable and re-record the sound on the second PC... Hell if your not using an iMac you can prolly get digital cards and use and optical cable - that should give as good a result as anyone needs.
My question is this, where are the list of authorised computers stored? In the file? If so what happens when "god forbid" my iMac bursts into flames and I have to restore my aac files from a DVD backup? Who has the authority to say that my new iMac is a trusted computer?
Originally posted by Gargoyle
My question is this, where are the list of authorized computers stored? In the file? If so what happens when "god forbid" my iMac bursts into flames and I have to restore my aac files from a DVD backup? Who has the authority to say that my new iMac is a trusted computer?
as long as you have the songs... you "register" the new mac with the iTunes music store and all the music you bought will work...
BUT that is only if you have a backup...
Be sure to make regular backups of your music files (in your iTunes Music folder) by copying them to an external hard disk or other media. If your hard disk becomes damaged or you lose any of the music you've purchased, you'll have to reimport all your songs and buy any purchased music again to rebuild your library.
what would be killer is if apple would allow you to restore any track you have bought from them. but thats not how it works now...
if it worked this way now I'm sure noone would have a problem with prices as they currently stand...
First torifile goes (not bitching) on how inconvinient it is to go from AAC to mp3, most people don't understand and jump on the poor guy, then he concludes by saying that he's got aux in jack in his car audio... lol,
Then you start to worry about authorizing computers, etc and what will happen if your computer burns....
Guys, think, why should apple be responsible for making backups for you? and then lets say if you do have backup and your comp burns, don't you think that there must be a way to restore few grand worth of music to your comp?
I believe apple thought of that while designing iTunes 4.
And then issue of adding mp3 to itunes store....
I T W I L L N E V E R H A P P E N !
Apple will provide winblows users with some ability to play aac files either by adding functionality to jukebox soft, or perhaps releasing iTunes for win.
The whole idea is that you have an integrated system of downloading music , burning cd, and listening your music on portable device (iPod). It was designed with iPod in mind and it will stay this way. If your portable player does not support aac, your are out of luck, maybe when iTunes Store becomes popular enough you will get aac support.
Apple had to compromise to make it work. IMO it worked out great!
It just needs time, music collection has to expand, and it will, win support has to be there and it will be there, give it time.
...my CDN$ 0.02
Consider the following...
1. It's simply laughable to put a 10 burn limit on unshuffled playlists when one can simply make a disc image of the resulting burnt CD then burn an endless number of copies in toast if their business is to sell pirated CDS.
2. If AAC can be burnt to AIFF then all that is required is a third party encoder that recognizes and accomodates the subtle sound quality compromises AAC produces in an AIFF file in order not to amplify them during a re-encode. In short, if the AIFF sounds good then a smart encoder can make the mp3 sound good.
3. Eventually the copy protection flags in the purchased AAC files will be identified and someone will come out with a "cleaner". I'm amazed one hasn't been produced already considering that you can rip unflagged AACs from your own CDs then compare the resulting files to the purchased ones (or just go purchased AAC -> AIF -> back to clean AAC).
Jobs isn't stupid enough to think DRM can work for long. He realizes that the only winning features of an online music service will be convenience, quality assurance, and savings on distribution costs.
99 cents a track will work for a little bit, then they will have to cut prices to something reasonable like 10-25 cents. The mental imange which comes to mind is when someone is playing music on the street and you toss a coin into their hat in appreciation. They're musicians, they're not curing cancer and, frankly, they're way overpaid.
Originally posted by piwozniak
Guys, think, why should apple be responsible for making backups for you? and then lets say if you do have backup and your comp burns, don't you think that there must be a way to restore few grand worth of music to your comp?
I believe apple thought of that while designing iTunes 4.
care to elaborate? you seem to be contradicting yourself, but I think I am just misunderstanding you... Do you agree that Apple should allow you to download the songs again?
Nord, while I agree with you... keep it down man! we don't want the fact that the DRM is bogus to get outside of Steve's RDF! Man! want to get Apple in trouble?
The record companies can choke on it, they probably entered into a contract with Apple...
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
99 cents a track will work for a little bit, then they will have to cut prices to something reasonable like 10-25 cents. The mental imange which comes to mind is when someone is playing music on the street and you toss a coin into their hat in appreciation. They're musicians, they're not curing cancer and, frankly, they're way overpaid.
I agree. You know what would be really cool is if Apple allowed people to send them songs they recorded and then charged a quarter for them and gave 20 to the "artist." Or maybe allowed you to set your own price. In effect Apple could become a distributer for any band without a label. Since the I doubt even Eminem is making 20 cents per song on the CDs he sells, this might even catch on among people who do have labels. I just made up the prices here but I bet with the right pricing Apple could become Universal without having to buy them.
Originally posted by Nordstrodamus
The copy protection is posturing by Apple to appease the record companies, nothing more.
That's overstating it a bit. All that copy protection has to do is keep honest people honest. It's not at all hard to figure out how to pick the average lock, and the information is out there for anyone willing to look, but locks are still widely used and effective.
If Apple succeeds in showing the industry that foolproof copy protection is unnecessary as well as infuriating and essentially impossible, they'll have scored a huge victory for everyone, including the labels (and movie studios).
They're musicians, they're not curing cancer and, frankly, they're way overpaid.
An artist who has a million-selling album is lucky to make $20,000 off of it with the standard contract, when all's said and done. Those artists that don't manage a million-seller, which is to say almost all of them, are lucky to be able to make a living doing what they're doing. All of the ones who do manage do so by touring constantly, selling merchandise, and selling CDs at live shows, where they get a much bigger cut. (Even there, the majors include as part of their contract a clause that requires artists to buy tour CDs at special, higher prices so that the cut isn't that much bigger. Still, $1 a CD is much better than the going rate.)
The labels are currently getting 65 cents per song from Apple. Almost none of that is going to the artist. You could sell songs for 25 cents each and still pay artists two or three times more than they're getting now just by cutting out the middleman. But that's probably not going to happen any time soon. The middlemen are big, and they do fill a role even if they do so inefficiently and greedily.