Trouble in iTunesland rising prices
Ok i'm a bit disappointed here.
50+ Million songs have been downloaded via iTunes.
That's at the very least 25 Million tracks that could have been received via more unscrupulous ways. Yet certain individuals would still prefer slap us in the face. What I mean is
Just a quick perusal of iTMS shows that
N.E.R.D album is $16.99
Wyntom Marsalis = $16.99
The new Cypress Hill- By Song only?
Wow I guess there's only so much Apple can do. But I hope these people realize that we just want music. That's all
50+ Million songs have been downloaded via iTunes.
That's at the very least 25 Million tracks that could have been received via more unscrupulous ways. Yet certain individuals would still prefer slap us in the face. What I mean is
Just a quick perusal of iTMS shows that
N.E.R.D album is $16.99
Wyntom Marsalis = $16.99
The new Cypress Hill- By Song only?
Wow I guess there's only so much Apple can do. But I hope these people realize that we just want music. That's all
Comments
The hell I'm spending the price of a full CD for compressed audio and a JPEG. Sheesh!
The big labels will never learn. Never.
Originally posted by Amorph
Yeah, I was sad to see Apple starting to cave on those issues.
The hell I'm spending the price of a full CD for compressed audio and a JPEG. Sheesh!
The big labels will never learn. Never.
I've been waiting for this. Glory, glory, hallelujah! Sorry but you've been ripped off from the start. I'm not blaming Apple but the prices were too high all along. The huge disparity between CD quality audio and AAC alone should have meant lower prices and that's before factoring in that you are more limited with what you can do with iTunes music and the whole joke that is the 30 second preview.
After the Rolling Stone interview, I really thought Steve got it. That he must have something up his sleeve to turn the tables on the record companies. But increasingly I find myself doubting this theory (but then the IV makes no sense!) Better hope the P2Pers weather the storm or else we'll all find out just how greedy the labels really are.
Originally posted by crazychester
I've been waiting for this. Glory, glory, hallelujah! Sorry but you've been ripped off from the start. I'm not blaming Apple but the prices were too high all along. The huge disparity between CD quality audio and AAC alone should have meant lower prices and that's before factoring in that you are more limited with what you can do with iTunes music and the whole joke that is the 30 second preview.
After the Rolling Stone interview, I really thought Steve got it. That he must have something up his sleeve to turn the tables on the record companies. But increasingly I find myself doubting this theory (but then the IV makes no sense!) Better hope the P2Pers weather the storm or else we'll all find out just how greedy the labels really are.
30 sec. previews are good, many artists have prefomed the same song, find out which is which...now the quality.....what quality, 128k aac holds nothing to a 320 or even 256k mp3, FOR FREE on kazaa, let me pay a set fee for access to the library like the big boys and I would gladly pay for downloads but in the current setting, CD's are king for the foreseeable future.
iTunes is doing a great job of expanding my horizons. I'm checking out new artists and enjoying this. Especially knowing that the artist is being compensated if only to know that someone felt their music was worth paying for.
The studios should not fool themselves. P2P is still going strong and if they burn the bridge that is being created by these "pay for play" services then they will lose trust, possibly for good.
Partial albums are bad enough. But to charge more than a physical cd deserves nothing short of outrage. In fact I think I will send some stern emails to Virgin and EMI and any other label that has the gall to charge this amount for 1010110100101010's.
Originally posted by a_greer
30 sec. previews are good, many artists have prefomed the same song, find out which is which
Oh right so that's what the 30 sec previews are for. There I was thinking it was a half-hearted attempt at try before you buy. Silly me. As if the labels would ever permit that.
Originally posted by hmurchison
I really feel for the artists. They basically have to do what the studio says because not many artists have the success to the point where they can dictacte terms.
........
i agree, the other major problem with the lables is they wouldnt know good music if it walked in the office and slapped them upside the head, why else do we get nothing but rap and crummy country (Toby keith not withstanding). if the rolling stones came in today, they would be told that they were not the right look, but if the lead man goes homo and calls himself timberlake then sings 2 octives higher it would sell.
Originally posted by a_greer
i agree, the other major problem with the lables is they wouldnt know good music if it walked in the office and slapped them upside the head, why else do we get nothing but rap and crummy country (Toby keith not withstanding). if the rolling stones came in today, they would be told that they were not the right look, but if the lead man goes homo and calls himself timberlake then sings 2 octives higher it would sell.
Originally posted by crazychester
I've been waiting for this. Glory, glory, hallelujah! Sorry but you've been ripped off from the start. I'm not blaming Apple but the prices were too high all along. The huge disparity between CD quality audio and AAC alone should have meant lower prices and that's before factoring in that you are more limited with what you can do with iTunes music and the whole joke that is the 30 second preview.
After the Rolling Stone interview, I really thought Steve got it. That he must have something up his sleeve to turn the tables on the record companies. But increasingly I find myself doubting this theory (but then the IV makes no sense!) Better hope the P2Pers weather the storm or else we'll all find out just how greedy the labels really are.
Could someone, crazychester perhaps, explain what this post means, it sounds interesting but it's a bit elliptical.
for example:
What have you been waiting for?
Ripped off since the start of what? iTMS, CDs?
What huge disparity in quality?
Why should lower audio quality = lower prices?
Why is the preview a joke?
What did you think SJ got?
What tables needed turned?
Why are you now sure they won't be?
What theory are you doubting?
What is the 'IV'?
What storm are the P2Pers weathering?
Is your name a reference to 'The Weight'?
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
Could someone, crazychester perhaps, explain what this post means, it sounds interesting but it's a bit elliptical.
I can't answer all those points, but what seems to be materializing is the fears of copyright critics.
Their arguement is, that even though you have downloaded and paid for your AAC song with certain restrictions ... those restrictions can change at ANY time. If tomorrow, the labels decided you can't play your iTMS song on your iPod, guess what ... the next version of Quicktime or iTunes won't let you do that.
This isn't what has happened of course, but Labels starting to get greedy already and charge premiums for a download - which is kind of kills the point of downloading it. Sure it's convenient, but there's all those distribution and warehouse savings which they are hording for themselves. Their just so fuking greedy.
What cool gut said and...
What have you been waiting for?
People to question whether iTMS is all it's cracked up to be.
Ripped off since the start of what? iTMS, CDs?
I was referring in this instance to being ripped off from the start of iTMS - the prices were always higher than they should have been. Of course, we've been ripped off on the price of CDs as well but that was happening long before iTMS came along.
What huge disparity in quality?
Between, in this case, AAC and CDs. Listen to an iTMS song then listen to the same song on CD. Makes any difference between mp3 and AAC pale into insignificance. If you can't hear it, you either haven't got good enough ears or you own really crappy sound equipment.
Why should lower audio quality = lower prices?
Because it's an inferior product.
Why is the preview a joke?
See posts and replies above. I figured 30 sec previews were there to let you try the product (and 30 secs isn't enough for that). Of course, if they're not for that then it's another area in which iTMS falls short. I can go into a record store and listen to a whole album before buying it if I want to.
What did you think SJ got? What tables needed turned?
Well he was the one who said you'll never stop people downloading music illegally. That with other comments in that interview suggested to me that he understood the recording industry's current business model needs a complete overhaul.
Why are you now sure they won't be?
What theory are you doubting?
I didn't say I was sure. The theory that Steve gets it. Actually, I do still think it will work itself out in the end and I've always thought the whole copyright and DRM thing will take a long time to play itself out and has much further to go, keeping in mind it goes way beyond just music. I'd just like to see Apple leading the charge and, hopefully, in the process finding a nice cushy little spot for themselves in the new order.
What is the 'IV'?
Now I know you're just being obstreperous.
What storm are the P2Pers weathering?
The RIAA's law suits.
Is your name a reference to 'The Weight'?
Yes.
Originally posted by crazychester
Now I know you're just being obstreperous.
I don't think he was being obstreperous. I have no idea about what you mean by "the IV" either.
As for the quality of AAC... I've heard some differences with some music, but I have to listen hard for those differences or have them explicitly pointed out to me. Like all encoders, AAC has some weak points that need to be worked on. (Which doesn't mean other encoders are better, just that they have different weak points.) I'd be happier if iTMS at least gave you the option of buying 192K downloads.
Maybe some people are simply more sensitive to some compression effects as well, but, on the other hand, it's also true that a lot of people can't really hear differences that they think they can hear.
I don't debate the existence of these differences. I've heard them myself, and I've been able to do blind tests where I can pick out these differences. But I'd ask you to try this: use shuffle play to mix up some AIFF CD rips, and AAC rips of the same tunes. Tell me if you don't find yourself working at it to figure out which is which most of the time.
As far as I'm concerned, if you have to work at it to tell the difference, it's not that big a difference.
Originally posted by shetline
I don't think he was being obstreperous. I have no idea about what you mean by "the IV" either.
As for the quality of AAC... I've heard some differences with some music, but I have to listen hard for those differences or have them explicitly pointed out to me. Like all encoders, AAC has some weak points that need to be worked on. (Which doesn't mean other encoders are better, just that they have different weak points.) I'd be happier if iTMS at least gave you the option of buying 192K downloads.
Maybe some people are simply more sensitive to some compression effects as well, but, on the other hand, it's also true that a lot of people can't really hear differences that they think they can hear.
I don't debate the existence of these differences. I've heard them myself, and I've been able to do blind tests where I can pick out these differences. But I'd ask you to try this: use shuffle play to mix up some AIFF CD rips, and AAC rips of the same tunes. Tell me if you don't find yourself working at it to figure out which is which most of the time.
As far as I'm concerned, if you have to work at it to tell the difference, it's not that big a difference.
Waaaah! IV - my shorthand for interview alright?
Done the AIFF/AAC thing before but OK I'll do the "blind" test just to make sure. But I didn't have to work to tell the difference previously. Sometimes have to work to tell the difference between lossy formats but the CD vs. AAC thing is very obvious to my ears.
Kirk
Noted.
I recognized FairPlay as triage at the outset. Really, what else are you going to get with corporations hammering out an agreement? The only thing that could come up with a more DRM-hostile solution would be Congress, and they were right in the middle of making DRM mandatory, so that all media would be DRM'd by default and bypassing the protection for any reason would be a Federal crime, when iTMS showed up and changed the entire dialog. Remember all that talk about Palladium? About the successor to DMCA? You can thank iTMS for changing the terms of the issue from protecting content to appealing to consumers, and that was only possible because Steve made some compromises to the industry. It's not his job to fix their business model, anyway.
So before you go dancing on iTMS for not being the Platonic ideal of online stores, think about the fact that it exists at all, since it takes a stance on DRM that the industry opposed and a stance on treating consumers that the industry didn't share. Think about how it completely changed the dialog on how to manage digital media, and killed further legislation to mandate DRM in software and hardware (which the RIAA has pledged not to pursue). What it did accomplish was huge, and that matters.
iTMS is a step in the right direction. I support it for that reason (and because it's the best distribution an independent artist can have
It's in that context that I
Originally posted by Amorph
Oh, so the basis of your criticism is that since iTMS isn't the most perfect solution conceivable, it's worthless and it deserves to fail.
Noted.
I recognized FairPlay as triage at the outset. Really, what else are you going to get with corporations hammering out an agreement? The only thing that could come up with a more DRM-hostile solution would be Congress, and they were right in the middle of making DRM mandatory, so that all media would be DRM'd by default and bypassing the protection for any reason would be a Federal crime, when iTMS showed up and changed the entire dialog. Remember all that talk about Palladium? About the successor to DMCA? You can thank iTMS for changing the terms of the issue from protecting content to appealing to consumers, and that was only possible because Steve made some compromises to the industry. It's not his job to fix their business model, anyway.
So before you go dancing on iTMS for not being the Platonic ideal of online stores, think about the fact that it exists at all, since it takes a stance on DRM that the industry opposed and a stance on treating consumers that the industry didn't share. Think about how it completely changed the dialog on how to manage digital media, and killed further legislation to mandate DRM in software and hardware (which the RIAA has pledged not to pursue). What it did accomplish was huge, and that matters.
iTMS is a step in the right direction. I support it for that reason (and because it's the best distribution an independent artist can have
It's in that context that I
Is that directed at me? I guess it is. I'm not entirely sure I like what might be implied by "Noted." Please don't go all AO on me or I may be forced to withdraw my petition to the UN to have you made benevolent despot of the world.
And no I don't think iTMS is worthless and deserves to fail. I actually agree with a lot of your points though I wouldn't give iTMS as much credit in halting/slowing the march of DRM as you do. Remember Steve pushed iTMS to the labels using the argument it would discourage illegal downloading. Without P2P, I suspect he'd still be trying to get the labels to listen.
I only think Apple should get involved in changing the current business model because, IMHO, I think that model will fail sooner or later and Apple now has a vested interest in the music biz. And as I said earlier in this thread, I don't blame Apple for what I see as iTMS's deficiencies. Hard as it is to imagine, I think the labels had/have Steve's balls in a vice-like grip.
About the only advantage I can see that iTMS has over a good record store is convenience. Whereas, as I've labored to point out, it has a number of disadvantages compared to traditional record stores.
And I guess it's best I just don't mention that I think nearly all recorded music is ridiculously over-valued for what it is (oops I just did - damn). As someone involved in live performing, I cannot fathom how I can often see a band live for only a few more $'s than it costs to buy their CD. A CD is, at best, a constructed performance in which the artists can do it over and over again until they get it right and then mass produce the result. Live performing on the other hand involves doing it over and over again then presenting it and hoping like hell that you have got it right because there are no second chances. And then coming back the next night and doing it all again.
I'll reply tomorrow. Sorry.
OW 5 crashed
That and $30 bucks will get you...well a cup of coffee...
Sorry.
at least 90% of the time, stuff I buy on iTMS I'd be hard pressed to get through poisoned or any other file sharing program. It'd end using a lot more of my time, and I wouldn't even necessarily get very good ID3 tags, which is a pain in the butt and even more time wasted correcting them.
I don't buy albums that are over $9.99 on iTunes, though there are two that I have been eyeing for a while.
My big gripe with iTMS is partial albums! they piss me off more than anything else. I can handle prices going up here and there, but it's the partial albums that really bug me. I especially hate when they have the [clean] version and it's a full album and the [explicit] version is partial, and only missing 2 tracks
While there are some ridiculous price hikes on iTMS (I have seen 8-10 track albums cost ~$20) there are also some very good deals here and there(I have also seen 8-10 track albums sell for ~$5, as well as 20+ track albums selling for $9.99)
I do hope that apple continues to improve this stuff though, they have a great set up so far, but if they keep up these shoddy discrepancies, then it could really hurt their reputation in the long run. I mean 50 million downloads is crazy! but if they don't do anything about these irregularities, they can and will build up and create a problem.
as far as .aac vs. uncompressed. Sure there is a difference, but ya know what, It's not prevalent enough for me to care, especially since I don't have hi-fi headphones, or hi-fi stereos. I have decent stuff, but not the type of stuff that will make a big noticeable difference in casual listening, and yes I have very good ears, I can hear the difference, I just don't let it get to me.
Album artwork, liner notes..etc. It would be very nice if apple included album info in your purchase like htey do on hte store, but then again, it will always be available on the store, as well as on www.allmusic.com
Ever since I got my iPod though, I have had *no* need for CDs, I rip any new CDs I buy instantly and they go on my Pod, I only have about 6 CDs in Boston, out of the hundreds I have at home. They really hold little to no value for me.
[/rambling