Its ironic that Apple pushes for this and then the music companies do the same thing with a competitor. What did Amazon offer that Apple didn't? Steve jobs may start changing the iTunes model now that they aren't the only ones offering what the music listener wants, and if they do the music companies would be stupid to refuse.
We the consumer win and It started with Napster not iTunes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
What started with the consumer? DRM-free downloads? Yes. But it was Napster (ie: illegal file sharing) that soured the idea for the music industry of selling music downloads on the internet to begin with. Not that they wouldn't have been acted the same way, but they sure made it tough after Napster.
Yeah but that doesn't matter. Napster got the wheels turning. They may have lost the original battle but they got everything thinking and the years finally led to what we have now. Same as trackers like Oink. The people spoke and took action by showing the industry how they wanted to access music and we got our way. If no one gave a shit or never started dl'ing music we'd still be lining up at stores and buying over priced CD's. Unfortunately mp3's suck and lossless is the only way to go if you are intending on moving from hard to digital.
No, the EU is correct, Apple prices all their products differently all over the EU (and it is not just the VAT differences either), and we should be able to take advantage of purchasing from the cheaper EU store.
It was late and that wasnt the point i was making. the record companies IMO are moving to a position where Apple is the big player in town and {Record companies}" Apple is using horrid DRM, when we WANT to offer it DRM free honest EU we really do, but their "non standard" AAC wont let us" its a load of FUD posturing I can see, but its so easy to quash that it SHOULDN'T matter.
BUT, expect to see a lot of "they said, we said" back and forth in the rumour sites between Apple and the record companies, unless of course iSteve delivers the goods on the 15th. which I hope he does
Again, this is only my opinion and I'd like to be proven wrong.
IF these other stores that sell unprotected MP3s like Amazon were to offer a Web Services type API allowing other sites to provide a front end to purchases through them then iTunes could evolve into an app that lets you search for music accross multiple stores and buy the file thats best (price, bit rate tradeoff etc)
In every conference call where the iTunes store has been mentioned Apple has only ever said 'the iTunes store operated at above break even during the quarter'
that suggests to me music sales through iTunes have only ever just broken even, as others have said Apples main goal is to sell iPods/iPhones and one way to do this is to ensure iTunes is the preferred software for digital music purchase & organisation - giving consumers a choice through iTunes like that would surely only drive up iPod/phone sales and free Apple from the headache of negotiating with greedy and stubborn music execs leaving it to conventrate on what it does best...
Anyway irrelevant, I'm just putting the finishing touches to my new MP3 download company, watch out Apple and Amazon, there's a new player in town thats gonna spank all your asses. Let the best man win
Can't wait for your new store. Hope this review helps you compete with the big boys...
Can't resist adding my 2-cents on Amazon store, since I know many have not yet tried it.
It does what it is advertises, but does nothing to inspire me to want to keep using it. A simple download takes care of routing purchases into iTunes, so at least Bezos got that right. And the quality of music seems fine (in 4 purchases I've not had any incorrect songs as posted here-lucky me!). The killer is, and I suppose this just makes it like many things un-Apple'd, the interface. It is such a miserable, difficult experience, compared to (the admittedly more and more cluttered and difficult) iTunes. I truly hate it. When I am looking for a specific song, no problem. I& can search for it and up it comes. But there is no elegence to browsing, no easy integration of additional music by the artist in question.
I resist, always, the temptation to default and say "Apple is best" (no, I'm not sure why I'm afraid of just caving and being a blind fanboy). But in this case, there is not question. Here's hoping I can oneday soon get all of the benefits this DRM-based competition will bring AND never have to stray past iTunes to have them.
(Gang, can somebody insult someone else's opinion soon? My primary reason for reading these daily is to hear Apple news, see what's coming and hear what many of you think. But nothing beats the poor grammar and blind rage coming from those trying to knock someone else down, or assert why they know more. Thanks in advance-it is always funny and always makes me laugh at you. Heck, tee-off on me if it helps me get my laugh on....)
I also did not own an iPod until recently, and really if I had a choice again I would still not own one, however it was free with the purchase of a new machine for work here so I said what the heck. It has hardware lock up issues all the time, spends tons of power when powered down, I leave it for a week without playing and the headphones unplugged, and it is at half charge at best, and yes I put on the hold button when I shut it off so that it doesn't turn on accidentally.
To actually turn off an ipod, you have to hold down the center button for a couple of seconds. Merely locking the ipod means the internals are still running, but just preventing the acidental activation of the screen and such.
Sorry about the hardware issues. I've never had any issues with my B&W 4G Classic. Maybe you should see about an exchange?
Personally I'll happily buy Apple's DRM'ed music over Amazon's every day of the week. Why? Best of the better file quallty of ACC. Even at the 128kbs bit rate, that most of Apple's is, it still sounds better that Amazon's out dated 256kbs MP3 format. Then if you are lucky you might get one of the DRM free 256kbs ACC files.
Personally I'm not trying to do anything illegal with my music, so I'll go DRM and quality over DRM-less and old technology.
Probably the only reason Amazon has to use MP3, is because most of the other music player manufactors are treating the consumer like cattle.
Neither MP3 or AAC equal quality music. In both the now and future.
I can't understand why people buy music without it being at least CD quality and lossles without DRM. How do you expect to use that music in the future with future codecs and player when codecs get replaced and music players get replaced or dropped all together?
Businesses should be taking advantage of this online market and release FLAC versions of the album too. Businesses should be more about quality than crap.
And at a reasonable price. The world is getting so F***ed up, its not even something one should think of funnily.
We are on our way to low quality garbage at a mega high price, where people don't make much money anymore for doing even hard jobs.
And i believe a lot of it has to do with people not DEMANDING better. They just settle for whatever is there, they take the easy way out, and in the end make things harder.
Meanwhile, Amazon downloads are STILL not available in Canada (or other countries for that matter). Ho-hum... Apple has already broken so much ground with Canadian consumers, albeit slowly, but I blame the CTRC for that.
And, the iTunes Music Store is just smexy!! Why would I want to use a Web Browser to view music, and a wimpy Mp3 Downloader to save my music?
Oh... and what's with this non-DRM thing anyway? I can see a major insurgence of 'quality' music on Peer-to-Peer networks soon. By quality, I mean Amazon or the recording studios already did the ripping, and the customers will do the redistribution.
DRM is a necessity... just, FairPlay should be made available as a Windows Media Player plug-in.
Many years ago, when I worked for a CD-ROM publishing company, the owner said, "Content is king".
Unfortunately without content, Apple is being played by those with. It seems like an "anybody but Apple" strategy to bring Apple down. How soon they forget where they were before iTunes and legal downloading.
I don't think it's a problem. iTunes supports their hardware business. If the content comes from somewhere else, that's fine, it's never been hard to add. Apple makes more money on the hardware anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swmooretiger
Content matters, but not to a company like Apple. The iTMS only exists to provide content for the iPod/iPhone. If Apple didn't sell the iPod, they wouldn't have the store, not the other way around.
Amazon's service integrates very well with iTunes, allowing consumers to very easily purchase content from Amazon, but still buy their hardware from Apple.
In the end, I think it was the labels who were out played by Apple. They did what SJ wanted while thinking they were in control and really sticking it to Apple. Now the content market will start to free up, and people will have no good reason not to buy an iPod or iPhone to play their DRM free music.
Edit: Don't forget that it was Apple who also pushed to break albums up into individual songs. Apple "won" in that situation by having the first digital store to provide single tracks. However, the music was still laced with DRM.
The DRM isn't _that_ bad. Usually it's a nuisance at worst. It's DRM is possibly the freest out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
amazon.com has to be one of the worst-designed and unappealing websites in the world. I hate going there. I hate shopping there.
Let's see how successful they are with their music download business (assuming that it matters much -- except for the signals that it sends -- to Apple).
That said, I have to say that the iTunes store website is also slowly (but steadily) beginning to look like cluttered crap.
I suppose Amazon could be cleaned up a bit, but I really haven't ever had a problem with their site.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
First HD DVD, now iTunes? What's next in 2008?
I doubt iTunes is going to die soon. Apple has most of the legal download market tied up and I think they're the #4 or #3 music seller. Maybe their significance would fade, but I don't think Apple, Amazon or the labels are going to kill the service.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jaijaz
Personally I'll happily buy Apple's DRM'ed music over Amazon's every day of the week. Why? Best of the better file quallty of ACC. Even at the 128kbs bit rate, that most of Apple's is, it still sounds better that Amazon's out dated 256kbs MP3 format. Then if you are lucky you might get one of the DRM free 256kbs ACC files.
Personally I'm not trying to do anything illegal with my music, so I'll go DRM and quality over DRM-less and old technology.
Have you actually tried to make a double-blind comparison on your own, or are you just going by prejudice here? By every account I've seen, Amazon's 256kbps VBR MP3 is very close to Apple's 256 CBR AAC. MP3 may be older, but it's pretty mature, and there may yet still be some improvement on the encoder side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Walter Slocombe
I smell two things. 1. collusion between the record labels "anybody but apple" which I believe is illegal.
and 2. the record labels looking for a scape goat, as in "see EU, Apple IS EVIL"
and I can't imagine Apple legal backing down from either.
It is possible for the labels to independently decide against Apple. To prove collusion, you have to have proof that the companies have been communicating directly with each other. Even if it's true, it's hard to prove.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme
Good thoughts.
In any case, while only one next-gen DVD format may survive, multiple music stores can survive. Some people talk as though ANYONE else finding ANY success means that iTunes won't be #1 anymore. In fact, some suggest that iTunes will QUICKLY not be #1 anymore. In fact... some go so far as to suggest iTunes' Doom Doesn't really make a lot of sense.
If it's DRM free, then the store doesn't matter. The DVD equivalent for the previous model goes something like you buy a DVD player from a store chain, you must then buy the DVDs from the same chain too or it won't work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by success
We the consumer win and It started with Napster not iTunes.
Napster was not a store, nor was it legal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
You must be kiddding-right? Then why offer it for sale in the first place? Apple even wants you to buy more music at Starbucks! Thank god the internet is free. If Apple could, they would sell access to the internet as well.
Internet is not free as in no cost. Many companies sell internet access, someone pays for the internet. Fiber optic cables and DSL loops don't lay themselves. Servers and switches don't buy themselves. The same goes with upgrades and maintenance. Even if you're using your neighbor's AP, your neighbor is the one paying for it. Starbuck's pays for Internet to get people to buy their coffee.
Quote:
Originally Posted by macinthe408
I am going to spite Amazon just because they're capitulating to the demands of the record companies, and not me, Joe Consumer.
What demands is Amazon capitulating to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by urtho
I guess I have to be one to buck trend here, and yes I know this is an Apple site. However I find the use of iTunes horrid for buying tracks, and very inconvenient, at home I have an AMD box running Ubuntu, but even if I were running Windows on it, I would NEVER, EVER install iTunes on Windows. iTunes on Windows is just too bloated and useless, takes up a ton of unnecessary RAM, even when it is not running. I installed it once for a friend who insisted I install it for them, and when it was done I thought I had installed AOL with all the background apps that it had to run, and all the files that ran at startup, one of which I couldn't get to not run at startup no matter what I tried.
I've not had your problems with iTunes on Windows. I can and do run iTunes on a six year old Windows computer and it runs just fine. Its memory consumption isn't bad, it's in league with the average web browser. It only takes a lot of memory when you use CoverFlow, and that's because the cover art needs to be in memory to do that smoothly.
There is a tiny service for iTunes, but it's not a CPU or memory hog. There should be a flag in the advanced preferences pane that tells iTunes to start or not start when an iPod is disconnected. That's all it does, start iTunes when you plug in your iPod.
Comments
Except that that procedure losses you quality...
Mr. H
Language Police
We the consumer win and It started with Napster not iTunes.
What started with the consumer? DRM-free downloads? Yes. But it was Napster (ie: illegal file sharing) that soured the idea for the music industry of selling music downloads on the internet to begin with. Not that they wouldn't have been acted the same way, but they sure made it tough after Napster.
Yeah but that doesn't matter. Napster got the wheels turning. They may have lost the original battle but they got everything thinking and the years finally led to what we have now. Same as trackers like Oink. The people spoke and took action by showing the industry how they wanted to access music and we got our way. If no one gave a shit or never started dl'ing music we'd still be lining up at stores and buying over priced CD's. Unfortunately mp3's suck and lossless is the only way to go if you are intending on moving from hard to digital.
Mr. H
Language Police
Even the Police make mistakes sometimes
No, the EU is correct, Apple prices all their products differently all over the EU (and it is not just the VAT differences either), and we should be able to take advantage of purchasing from the cheaper EU store.
It was late and that wasnt the point i was making. the record companies IMO are moving to a position where Apple is the big player in town and {Record companies}" Apple is using horrid DRM, when we WANT to offer it DRM free honest EU we really do, but their "non standard" AAC wont let us" its a load of FUD posturing I can see, but its so easy to quash that it SHOULDN'T matter.
BUT, expect to see a lot of "they said, we said" back and forth in the rumour sites between Apple and the record companies, unless of course iSteve delivers the goods on the 15th. which I hope he does
Again, this is only my opinion and I'd like to be proven wrong.
IF these other stores that sell unprotected MP3s like Amazon were to offer a Web Services type API allowing other sites to provide a front end to purchases through them then iTunes could evolve into an app that lets you search for music accross multiple stores and buy the file thats best (price, bit rate tradeoff etc)
In every conference call where the iTunes store has been mentioned Apple has only ever said 'the iTunes store operated at above break even during the quarter'
that suggests to me music sales through iTunes have only ever just broken even, as others have said Apples main goal is to sell iPods/iPhones and one way to do this is to ensure iTunes is the preferred software for digital music purchase & organisation - giving consumers a choice through iTunes like that would surely only drive up iPod/phone sales and free Apple from the headache of negotiating with greedy and stubborn music execs leaving it to conventrate on what it does best...
Anyway irrelevant, I'm just putting the finishing touches to my new MP3 download company, watch out Apple and Amazon, there's a new player in town thats gonna spank all your asses. Let the best man win
Can't wait for your new store. Hope this review helps you compete with the big boys...
Can't resist adding my 2-cents on Amazon store, since I know many have not yet tried it.
It does what it is advertises, but does nothing to inspire me to want to keep using it. A simple download takes care of routing purchases into iTunes, so at least Bezos got that right. And the quality of music seems fine (in 4 purchases I've not had any incorrect songs as posted here-lucky me!). The killer is, and I suppose this just makes it like many things un-Apple'd, the interface. It is such a miserable, difficult experience, compared to (the admittedly more and more cluttered and difficult) iTunes. I truly hate it. When I am looking for a specific song, no problem. I& can search for it and up it comes. But there is no elegence to browsing, no easy integration of additional music by the artist in question.
I resist, always, the temptation to default and say "Apple is best" (no, I'm not sure why I'm afraid of just caving and being a blind fanboy). But in this case, there is not question. Here's hoping I can oneday soon get all of the benefits this DRM-based competition will bring AND never have to stray past iTunes to have them.
(Gang, can somebody insult someone else's opinion soon? My primary reason for reading these daily is to hear Apple news, see what's coming and hear what many of you think. But nothing beats the poor grammar and blind rage coming from those trying to knock someone else down, or assert why they know more. Thanks in advance-it is always funny and always makes me laugh at you. Heck, tee-off on me if it helps me get my laugh on....)
I also did not own an iPod until recently, and really if I had a choice again I would still not own one, however it was free with the purchase of a new machine for work here so I said what the heck. It has hardware lock up issues all the time, spends tons of power when powered down, I leave it for a week without playing and the headphones unplugged, and it is at half charge at best, and yes I put on the hold button when I shut it off so that it doesn't turn on accidentally.
To actually turn off an ipod, you have to hold down the center button for a couple of seconds. Merely locking the ipod means the internals are still running, but just preventing the acidental activation of the screen and such.
Sorry about the hardware issues. I've never had any issues with my B&W 4G Classic. Maybe you should see about an exchange?
Personally I'll happily buy Apple's DRM'ed music over Amazon's every day of the week. Why? Best of the better file quallty of ACC. Even at the 128kbs bit rate, that most of Apple's is, it still sounds better that Amazon's out dated 256kbs MP3 format. Then if you are lucky you might get one of the DRM free 256kbs ACC files.
Personally I'm not trying to do anything illegal with my music, so I'll go DRM and quality over DRM-less and old technology.
Probably the only reason Amazon has to use MP3, is because most of the other music player manufactors are treating the consumer like cattle.
Neither MP3 or AAC equal quality music. In both the now and future.
I can't understand why people buy music without it being at least CD quality and lossles without DRM. How do you expect to use that music in the future with future codecs and player when codecs get replaced and music players get replaced or dropped all together?
Businesses should be taking advantage of this online market and release FLAC versions of the album too. Businesses should be more about quality than crap.
And at a reasonable price. The world is getting so F***ed up, its not even something one should think of funnily.
We are on our way to low quality garbage at a mega high price, where people don't make much money anymore for doing even hard jobs.
And i believe a lot of it has to do with people not DEMANDING better. They just settle for whatever is there, they take the easy way out, and in the end make things harder.
Its ironic that Apple pushes for this and then the music companies do the same thing with a competitor. What did Amazon offer that Apple didn't?
Humility, perhaps?
And, the iTunes Music Store is just smexy!! Why would I want to use a Web Browser to view music, and a wimpy Mp3 Downloader to save my music?
Oh... and what's with this non-DRM thing anyway? I can see a major insurgence of 'quality' music on Peer-to-Peer networks soon. By quality, I mean Amazon or the recording studios already did the ripping, and the customers will do the redistribution.
DRM is a necessity... just, FairPlay should be made available as a Windows Media Player plug-in.
Windows Vista Winer-Crybabies...
Many years ago, when I worked for a CD-ROM publishing company, the owner said, "Content is king".
Unfortunately without content, Apple is being played by those with. It seems like an "anybody but Apple" strategy to bring Apple down. How soon they forget where they were before iTunes and legal downloading.
I don't think it's a problem. iTunes supports their hardware business. If the content comes from somewhere else, that's fine, it's never been hard to add. Apple makes more money on the hardware anyway.
Content matters, but not to a company like Apple. The iTMS only exists to provide content for the iPod/iPhone. If Apple didn't sell the iPod, they wouldn't have the store, not the other way around.
Amazon's service integrates very well with iTunes, allowing consumers to very easily purchase content from Amazon, but still buy their hardware from Apple.
In the end, I think it was the labels who were out played by Apple. They did what SJ wanted while thinking they were in control and really sticking it to Apple. Now the content market will start to free up, and people will have no good reason not to buy an iPod or iPhone to play their DRM free music.
Edit: Don't forget that it was Apple who also pushed to break albums up into individual songs. Apple "won" in that situation by having the first digital store to provide single tracks. However, the music was still laced with DRM.
The DRM isn't _that_ bad. Usually it's a nuisance at worst. It's DRM is possibly the freest out there.
amazon.com has to be one of the worst-designed and unappealing websites in the world. I hate going there. I hate shopping there.
Let's see how successful they are with their music download business (assuming that it matters much -- except for the signals that it sends -- to Apple).
That said, I have to say that the iTunes store website is also slowly (but steadily) beginning to look like cluttered crap.
I suppose Amazon could be cleaned up a bit, but I really haven't ever had a problem with their site.
First HD DVD, now iTunes? What's next in 2008?
I doubt iTunes is going to die soon. Apple has most of the legal download market tied up and I think they're the #4 or #3 music seller. Maybe their significance would fade, but I don't think Apple, Amazon or the labels are going to kill the service.
Personally I'll happily buy Apple's DRM'ed music over Amazon's every day of the week. Why? Best of the better file quallty of ACC. Even at the 128kbs bit rate, that most of Apple's is, it still sounds better that Amazon's out dated 256kbs MP3 format. Then if you are lucky you might get one of the DRM free 256kbs ACC files.
Personally I'm not trying to do anything illegal with my music, so I'll go DRM and quality over DRM-less and old technology.
Have you actually tried to make a double-blind comparison on your own, or are you just going by prejudice here? By every account I've seen, Amazon's 256kbps VBR MP3 is very close to Apple's 256 CBR AAC. MP3 may be older, but it's pretty mature, and there may yet still be some improvement on the encoder side.
I smell two things. 1. collusion between the record labels "anybody but apple" which I believe is illegal.
and 2. the record labels looking for a scape goat, as in "see EU, Apple IS EVIL"
and I can't imagine Apple legal backing down from either.
It is possible for the labels to independently decide against Apple. To prove collusion, you have to have proof that the companies have been communicating directly with each other. Even if it's true, it's hard to prove.
Good thoughts.
In any case, while only one next-gen DVD format may survive, multiple music stores can survive. Some people talk as though ANYONE else finding ANY success means that iTunes won't be #1 anymore. In fact, some suggest that iTunes will QUICKLY not be #1 anymore. In fact... some go so far as to suggest iTunes' Doom
If it's DRM free, then the store doesn't matter. The DVD equivalent for the previous model goes something like you buy a DVD player from a store chain, you must then buy the DVDs from the same chain too or it won't work.
We the consumer win and It started with Napster not iTunes.
Napster was not a store, nor was it legal.
You must be kiddding-right? Then why offer it for sale in the first place? Apple even wants you to buy more music at Starbucks! Thank god the internet is free. If Apple could, they would sell access to the internet as well.
Internet is not free as in no cost. Many companies sell internet access, someone pays for the internet. Fiber optic cables and DSL loops don't lay themselves. Servers and switches don't buy themselves. The same goes with upgrades and maintenance. Even if you're using your neighbor's AP, your neighbor is the one paying for it. Starbuck's pays for Internet to get people to buy their coffee.
I am going to spite Amazon just because they're capitulating to the demands of the record companies, and not me, Joe Consumer.
What demands is Amazon capitulating to?
I guess I have to be one to buck trend here, and yes I know this is an Apple site. However I find the use of iTunes horrid for buying tracks, and very inconvenient, at home I have an AMD box running Ubuntu, but even if I were running Windows on it, I would NEVER, EVER install iTunes on Windows. iTunes on Windows is just too bloated and useless, takes up a ton of unnecessary RAM, even when it is not running. I installed it once for a friend who insisted I install it for them, and when it was done I thought I had installed AOL with all the background apps that it had to run, and all the files that ran at startup, one of which I couldn't get to not run at startup no matter what I tried.
I've not had your problems with iTunes on Windows. I can and do run iTunes on a six year old Windows computer and it runs just fine. Its memory consumption isn't bad, it's in league with the average web browser. It only takes a lot of memory when you use CoverFlow, and that's because the cover art needs to be in memory to do that smoothly.
There is a tiny service for iTunes, but it's not a CPU or memory hog. There should be a flag in the advanced preferences pane that tells iTunes to start or not start when an iPod is disconnected. That's all it does, start iTunes when you plug in your iPod.