This would imply that most "serious" fans come from a CD-buying tradition and have had the time and income to satisfy their most pressing Beatles needs.
"Casual" Beatles fans, on the other hand, may have none of the albums, and I think they'll end up buying most of the tracks sold.
The only wrench I see in this argument is that "serious" and casual fans alike have had maybe 10+ years to buy the CDs that they wanted, which isn't a short period of time.
I really don't have much of a stake in the argument, I am interested to see how well it turns out, though I'm not sure if we'll ever really know how much of an impact Beatles tracks will have.
The only wrench I see in this argument is that "serious" and casual fans alike have had maybe 10+ years to buy the CDs that they wanted, which isn't a short period of time.
I really don't have much of a stake in the argument, I am interested to see how well it turns out, though I'm not sure if we'll ever really know how much of an impact Beatles tracks will have.
People don't always buy all the albums they want. There are many albums I want that I've never bought.
But buying through itunes is just too convenient. It is a paradigm changing product. A killer application, though many didn't realise it at the time.
If albums, and songs are 256 Kbs, I will start to buy. I've now tried a few that my wife bought, on my system downstairs, and they seem fine, though I wouldn't buy classical that way until the quality goes up further, as I think it will.
People don't always buy all the albums they want. There are many albums I want that I've never bought.
But buying through itunes is just too convenient. It is a paradigm changing product. A killer application, though many didn't realise it at the time.
If albums, and songs are 256 Kbs, I will start to buy.
Agreed. There's definitely a gap between what folks have, and what they want, in terms of music collections.
iTunes is a more affordable and convenient way than CD to bridge that gap. And the Beatles certainly have the mindshare with a lot of customers to be first in line when said customers wish to have their music collection 'wants' fulfilled. Now they just need iTS availability.
The single is back, largely thanks to iTunes. Future artists' albums may not be very commonplace.
The album is coming back, thanks to iTunes.
Quote:
My theory is that increasing bandwidth and cheap storage will lead to high bitrate songs streamed over network, yours or someone else's.
It's not just your theory. I've said that for a while . John Atkinson, of Stereophile, said the same thing, in an editorial, last month.
He said that this was the best thing that has happened to audio in a long time. He's right.
First comes convenience, then comes quality. The quality is beginning to come. First, Apple came out with AAC. Then Apple lossless Compression. Now 256K downloads. Sooner or later, we will see 320K, and then lossless.
First comes convenience, then comes quality. The quality is beginning to come. First, Apple came out with AAC. Then Apple lossless Compression. Now 256K downloads. Sooner or later, we will see 320K, and then lossless.
I may be being picky here, but I have to wonder why iTunes only stepped up to 256 Kbps for their higher-quality tracks... 320 kbps would've made more sense, or 256 kbps VBR (320 kpbs VBR would've been best of course, but iTunes only supports that for mp3 currently, not AAC).
The additional bandwidth required isn't much of a step up from 256 if you're coming up from 128 kbps already, and it kind of gives an opening to rival music stores to sell 320 kbps VBR mp3s or whatever and claim "higher quality than iTunes".
As you say, Lossless is the next step up from there, and it'll happen, but such a bandwidth hog... file sizes about triple that of 256 kbps. iPod shuffles and low-end Nanos hold only about 40 lossless songs. Egads, Steve Jobs... to the iPod Upgrademobile, STAT!
I may be being picky here, but I have to wonder why iTunes only stepped up to 256 Kbps for their higher-quality tracks... 320 kbps would've made more sense, or 256 kbps VBR (320 kpbs VBR would've been best of course, but iTunes only supports that for mp3 currently, not AAC).
The additional bandwidth required isn't much of a step up from 256 if you're coming up from 128 kbps already, and it kind of gives an opening to rival music stores to sell 320 kbps VBR mp3s or whatever and claim "higher quality than iTunes".
As you say, Lossless is the next step up from there, and it'll happen, but such a bandwidth hog... file sizes about triple that of 256 kbps. iPod shuffles and low-end Nanos hold only about 40 lossless songs. Egads, Steve Jobs... to the iPod Upgrademobile, STAT!
(as if he weren't counting on it...)
.
I'm sure the reason wasn't arbitrary. But, I'm not going to pretend I know what it was.
But, bandwidth is continually going up.
Remember about all of that unused "dark" fiber that was built back in the '90's? Well, that's bandwidth that's now going online. And more will continue to be built. It was just ahead of its time.
As the backbones get wider, Apple, and others, will have access to more bandwidth, and it will be getting cheaper per GHz/s.
When the time is right, Lossless will be doable.
It's all about the competition. Now that Apple offers 256, other large competitors will as well. Some have been offering more than 128 for a while, but it will take Apple's huge marketshare for that to matter as a competitive force.
It's all about the competition. Now that Apple offers 256, other large competitors will as well. Some have been offering more than 128 for a while, but it will take Apple's huge marketshare for that to matter as a competitive force.
Too true. The market, for the most part, follows iTunes, not the other way around. The one major deviation was the rental model, and that never really took off... and probably won't ever, unless Apple starts doing it.
The major labels may hate it, but Apple is dictating the terms online, with no credible competitor in sight. So sorry, Microsoft, Sony, Wal-Mart, Amazon, et al.
Comments
This would imply that most "serious" fans come from a CD-buying tradition and have had the time and income to satisfy their most pressing Beatles needs.
"Casual" Beatles fans, on the other hand, may have none of the albums, and I think they'll end up buying most of the tracks sold.
The only wrench I see in this argument is that "serious" and casual fans alike have had maybe 10+ years to buy the CDs that they wanted, which isn't a short period of time.
I really don't have much of a stake in the argument, I am interested to see how well it turns out, though I'm not sure if we'll ever really know how much of an impact Beatles tracks will have.
The only wrench I see in this argument is that "serious" and casual fans alike have had maybe 10+ years to buy the CDs that they wanted, which isn't a short period of time.
I really don't have much of a stake in the argument, I am interested to see how well it turns out, though I'm not sure if we'll ever really know how much of an impact Beatles tracks will have.
People don't always buy all the albums they want. There are many albums I want that I've never bought.
But buying through itunes is just too convenient. It is a paradigm changing product. A killer application, though many didn't realise it at the time.
If albums, and songs are 256 Kbs, I will start to buy. I've now tried a few that my wife bought, on my system downstairs, and they seem fine, though I wouldn't buy classical that way until the quality goes up further, as I think it will.
The only wrench I see in this argument is that "serious" and casual fans alike have had maybe 10+ years to buy the CDs that they wanted
That's basically it. Bigger impact than the average day but not as big a deal as John Lennon joining The View.
But buying through itunes is just too convenient. It is a paradigm changing product.
The single is back, largely thanks to iTunes. Future artists' albums may not be very commonplace.
until the quality goes up further, as I think it will.
My theory is that increasing bandwidth and cheap storage will lead to high bitrate songs streamed over network, yours or someone else's.
People don't always buy all the albums they want. There are many albums I want that I've never bought.
But buying through itunes is just too convenient. It is a paradigm changing product. A killer application, though many didn't realise it at the time.
If albums, and songs are 256 Kbs, I will start to buy.
Agreed. There's definitely a gap between what folks have, and what they want, in terms of music collections.
iTunes is a more affordable and convenient way than CD to bridge that gap. And the Beatles certainly have the mindshare with a lot of customers to be first in line when said customers wish to have their music collection 'wants' fulfilled. Now they just need iTS availability.
.
The single is back, largely thanks to iTunes. Future artists' albums may not be very commonplace.
The album is coming back, thanks to iTunes.
My theory is that increasing bandwidth and cheap storage will lead to high bitrate songs streamed over network, yours or someone else's.
It's not just your theory. I've said that for a while . John Atkinson, of Stereophile, said the same thing, in an editorial, last month.
He said that this was the best thing that has happened to audio in a long time. He's right.
First comes convenience, then comes quality. The quality is beginning to come. First, Apple came out with AAC. Then Apple lossless Compression. Now 256K downloads. Sooner or later, we will see 320K, and then lossless.
First comes convenience, then comes quality. The quality is beginning to come. First, Apple came out with AAC. Then Apple lossless Compression. Now 256K downloads. Sooner or later, we will see 320K, and then lossless.
I may be being picky here, but I have to wonder why iTunes only stepped up to 256 Kbps for their higher-quality tracks... 320 kbps would've made more sense, or 256 kbps VBR (320 kpbs VBR would've been best of course, but iTunes only supports that for mp3 currently, not AAC).
The additional bandwidth required isn't much of a step up from 256 if you're coming up from 128 kbps already, and it kind of gives an opening to rival music stores to sell 320 kbps VBR mp3s or whatever and claim "higher quality than iTunes".
As you say, Lossless is the next step up from there, and it'll happen, but such a bandwidth hog... file sizes about triple that of 256 kbps. iPod shuffles and low-end Nanos hold only about 40 lossless songs. Egads, Steve Jobs... to the iPod Upgrademobile, STAT!
(as if he weren't counting on it...)
.
I may be being picky here, but I have to wonder why iTunes only stepped up to 256 Kbps for their higher-quality tracks... 320 kbps would've made more sense, or 256 kbps VBR (320 kpbs VBR would've been best of course, but iTunes only supports that for mp3 currently, not AAC).
The additional bandwidth required isn't much of a step up from 256 if you're coming up from 128 kbps already, and it kind of gives an opening to rival music stores to sell 320 kbps VBR mp3s or whatever and claim "higher quality than iTunes".
As you say, Lossless is the next step up from there, and it'll happen, but such a bandwidth hog... file sizes about triple that of 256 kbps. iPod shuffles and low-end Nanos hold only about 40 lossless songs. Egads, Steve Jobs... to the iPod Upgrademobile, STAT!
(as if he weren't counting on it...)
.
I'm sure the reason wasn't arbitrary. But, I'm not going to pretend I know what it was.
But, bandwidth is continually going up.
Remember about all of that unused "dark" fiber that was built back in the '90's? Well, that's bandwidth that's now going online. And more will continue to be built. It was just ahead of its time.
As the backbones get wider, Apple, and others, will have access to more bandwidth, and it will be getting cheaper per GHz/s.
When the time is right, Lossless will be doable.
It's all about the competition. Now that Apple offers 256, other large competitors will as well. Some have been offering more than 128 for a while, but it will take Apple's huge marketshare for that to matter as a competitive force.
It's all about the competition. Now that Apple offers 256, other large competitors will as well. Some have been offering more than 128 for a while, but it will take Apple's huge marketshare for that to matter as a competitive force.
Too true. The market, for the most part, follows iTunes, not the other way around. The one major deviation was the rental model, and that never really took off... and probably won't ever, unless Apple starts doing it.
The major labels may hate it, but Apple is dictating the terms online, with no credible competitor in sight. So sorry, Microsoft, Sony, Wal-Mart, Amazon, et al.
.