How open is this hostility to iTunes? Have the record companies come out and admitted that they are supporting a rival to weaken iTunes grip on downloadable music?
Their behaviour sure sounds strane- embracing DRM free for Amazon, while punishing Apple for wanting DRM free, low cost songs from the outset.
Disagree about the web interface, but I agree otherwise. I'd easily pay a slight premium for Amazon because it's all DRM-free, so that a lot of what I'm looking for is the same or cheaper than iTMS locked material is just a great bonus.
Amazon MP3 Downloader is easy and seamless as far as iTunes integration goes - never understood how people could manage to whine about it.
I have made a few purchases from amazon and maybe its just me, but the music at 256k doesnt sound any better than itunes 128k to me. actually I think they sound worse. just doesnt seem to have the dynamics, maybe they are using inferior equipment? IDK.
also i have had 2 occasions that the downloads messed up and combined parts from 2 different songs on an album. weird... I contacted amazon and never received a resolution to the matter. so i am stuck with screwed up songs that don't sound as good as itunes.
Are there no patent issues with ASUS's new machine? I am so sick of Apple getting sued for everything under the sun and it seems like they have a good bit of intellectual property in this area. I know you dont want to dignify a truly feeble imitation (if that is what it turns out to be) and give it more press than it deserves, but if it is a blatant rip off of technology that Apple has spent a fortune bringing to market...
I have just purchased 3 albums from amazon as MP3's, the first electronic "albums" I've ever purchased. I own about 850 CD's and I rip them to FLAC and MP3 myself. I can't take the iTunes store seriously with the vast majority of the MP3's ripped at a mediocre 128 kbit rate. Combine that with DRM and it's a total non-starter.
What I did before I bought the music from amazon is to browse with itunes and listen to snippets of the music on the iTunes store, then I went and found it on amazon and bought. The iTunes browsing experience is a lot nicer IMHO than the amazon web store.
What I did before I bought the music from amazon is to browse with itunes and listen to snippets of the music on the iTunes store, then I went and found it on amazon and bought. The iTunes browsing experience is a lot nicer IMHO than the amazon web store.
That has to be the understatement of the year, the Amazon web store for MP3s is *terrible*!!! They aren't even in the same league with iTunes. The DRM-free 256k VBR MP3 downloads are the only reason Amazon is remotely competitive.
Here are two things Apple is selling that people don't want:
- AAC files (AA-what now?)
I've always thought that the MPEG made a huge mistake in not calling AAC "mp4". If they had, then everybody would realise that AAC is the successor to mp3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stokessd
I can't take the iTunes store seriously with the vast majority of the MP3's ripped at a mediocre 128 kbit rate.
The iTunes store doesn't use mp3, it uses AAC which is a much more efficient codec. Have you ever performed a double-blind comparison between a 128 kbps AAC and uncompressed audio? The comparison is much more favourable than between 128 kbps mp3 and uncompressed.
I've always thought that the MPEG made a huge mistake in not calling AAC "mp4". If they had, then everybody would realise that AAC is the successor to mp3.
Mp3 isn't an official name either. Apple probably could have just called it MP4 if they wanted to.
Quote:
The iTunes store doesn't use mp3, it uses AAC which is a much more efficient codec. Have you ever performed a double-blind comparison between a 128 kbps AAC and uncompressed audio? The comparison is much more favourable than between 128 kbps mp3 and uncompressed.
Even so, most of the reports I see say that Amazon's 256kbps VBR mp3 is quite a bit better than iTunes' 128 AAC CBR, and not that far from iTunes' 256 AAC CBR.
The iTunes store doesn't use mp3, it uses AAC which is a much more efficient codec. Have you ever performed a double-blind comparison between a 128 kbps AAC and uncompressed audio? The comparison is much more favourable than between 128 kbps mp3 and uncompressed.
Actually yes, and to both the Fraunhoffer and LAME MP3 encodings at many bit rates as well as variable bit rates.
I keep music I care about in lossless formats for streaming to my main audio system, and use MP3's for the ipod (iphone too) and for less critical streaming to background systems.
I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the differences and the trade-offs of the different codecs. I also spent a bit of time to get the ripping process up to my standards. that means ripping the CD with either Exact Audio Copy or CDparanoia, then operating on the resulting data. The process of getting a good rip from the physical medium is harder than many people think to get right, particularly with older disks.
Yes you are right, MP4 is better, but still MP4 at 128 kbits is still more marginal than variable bit rate LAME encoded MP3 at 250 kbit average files. It's pretty obvious even on questionable sound systems.
They are catching up because they are selling non-DRM'ed MP3s.
Agreed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Here are two things Apple is selling that people don't want:
- AAC files (AA-what now?)
- DRM
Disagreed.
People don't want? Then how has Apple sold more than 3 billion songs so far? Either people did want those or didn't care. Your claim is especially dubious given that people have always had a way to get non-AAC, non-DRM music into iTunes and onto their iPods by buying and ripping CDs, yet they have still purchased over 3 billion songs.
People don't want? Then how has Apple sold more than 3 billion songs so far? Either people did want those or didn't care. Your claim is especially dubious given that people have always had a way to get non-AAC, non-DRM music into iTunes and onto their iPods by buying and ripping CDs, yet they have still purchased over 3 billion songs.
I think it's likely they're both trying to frame their arguments. The Yahoo article isn't a press release, but they don't say exactly how they know Amazon is #2. There is a hint there though, they do cite some SoundScan numbers in part of the article. Amazon might be #2 in terms of Feb 08 sales, eMusic is comparing the amount of music they sold since Amazon started their service, which Amazon started out with no customer base in that business. Another thing to keep in mind is that eMusic works out to about half to a third the cost per track, so the dollar figures may end up changing the order vs. the track figures.
Edit: I think I found it. It's not Amazon, but the labels:
"Amazon's (AMZN) MP3 store — which sells only songs without copy protection — has quietly become No. 2 in digital sales since opening nearly six months ago, say the four major labels"
I don't know if the big four sell much through eMusic. So eMusic probably doesn't figure into their sales.
I don't think the free downloads are accounted for, but free tokens (which count as sales ARE counted in) and do you know how many songs were given away through PEPSI-AMAZON.. just do a google search and have a look yourself.. it's 1 billion songs!!! (1,000,000,000)
Has Apple ever stated that the free songs are not counted as sales? Unless you can say for certain that the free songs don't count, there's the potential of a good portion of iTunes "sales" to not really be "sales" at all. I used to download them every week and they showed up in my account history just like any other purchase.
As for the Pepsi - Amazon giveaway, it's a potential 1 billion songs. How many people are actually doing it? How many points get tossed in the trash every day? Plus those points can also be used to purchase videos from Unbox so who knows how many go that way. So what portion of that 1 billion will actually be claimed?
I am pretty sure that free songs aren't free. somebody is paying for them, whether it be pepsi or apple, the RIAA is getting their money. Because somebody paid for them, they are counted as sales.
Many companies sell products to themselves, I suspect this is no exception.
I looked over the articles and couldn't find an actual statement of percent market share that gave amazon the no. 2 rank. we only know that apple is at approx. 80%. there is a big difference between being number 2 at, say, 15% share, and being no. 2 at 5%. i'm surprised that the usatoday article didn't try to pin this down before deciding whether it was newsworthy.
The analyst group notes that the percentage of respondents looking to buy a Mac has only dropped slightly from all-time highs set in January, with 31 percent of notebook purchasers (down 2 percent) and 28 percent of prospective desktop buyers (down 1 percent) intending to pick up a Mac.
Isn't that missing the point? Or proving the opposite
If sales of computers are decreasing overall - then for Mac sales to stay strong, the percentage of notebook purchasers intending to pick up a Mac would have to increase. To have both the numbers of overall buyers decrease AND the percent wanting Mac to decrease... that'd have to mean a reduction in sales.
I would imagine the GPS functionality will be Assisted GPS. Most of the work is done on servers which can be faster and more reliable. This saves battery life and extra equipment in the phone itself.
Yeah, battery life will be hard, even though I imagine great strides will have been made in the last 12 months on both GPS and 3.5G wireless.
Assisted GPS (reading wikipedia) ... sounds like it's becoming common in the US - reduced computing power required and better coverage indoors. It also can use a cell tower to get an approximate location.
edit: Check out Enhanced GPS too (eGPS).
I would be surprised if Apple didn't keep the current "locate me" function. When you're indoors it wouldn't need satellite coverage. I would hope that your iPhone would also be able to note the GPS location against the local wireless access points & cell coverage - and send an update to the skyhookwireless servers. So if a GPS'd iPhone came to your house and located itself, a week later non-GPS iPhones and iPod Touch would discover where they are.
ps. SkyHookWireless have a program for Firefox called "Loki" which allows you to click a little green apple icon to find your location based on Wireless Access Point. If it can't locate you, it asks you to enter your address (if you know it) which it then uses to update their location database. Personally, for my own locations I've used iStumbler to find a local access point MAC address, and go to http://skyhookwireless.com/howitworks/submit_ap.php to submit them, it seems more accurate.
Comments
Apple is not playing nice with the record companies; Amazon is.
What with regard to variable pricing you mean?
What with regard to variable pricing you mean?
How open is this hostility to iTunes? Have the record companies come out and admitted that they are supporting a rival to weaken iTunes grip on downloadable music?
Their behaviour sure sounds strane- embracing DRM free for Amazon, while punishing Apple for wanting DRM free, low cost songs from the outset.
Disagree about the web interface, but I agree otherwise. I'd easily pay a slight premium for Amazon because it's all DRM-free, so that a lot of what I'm looking for is the same or cheaper than iTMS locked material is just a great bonus.
Amazon MP3 Downloader is easy and seamless as far as iTunes integration goes - never understood how people could manage to whine about it.
I have made a few purchases from amazon and maybe its just me, but the music at 256k doesnt sound any better than itunes 128k to me. actually I think they sound worse. just doesnt seem to have the dynamics, maybe they are using inferior equipment? IDK.
also i have had 2 occasions that the downloads messed up and combined parts from 2 different songs on an album. weird... I contacted amazon and never received a resolution to the matter. so i am stuck with screwed up songs that don't sound as good as itunes.
This is the ancient and bizarre business 101 principle called "selling a product people want."
Here are two things Apple is selling that people don't want:
- AAC files (AA-what now?)
- DRM
What I did before I bought the music from amazon is to browse with itunes and listen to snippets of the music on the iTunes store, then I went and found it on amazon and bought. The iTunes browsing experience is a lot nicer IMHO than the amazon web store.
Sheldon
What I did before I bought the music from amazon is to browse with itunes and listen to snippets of the music on the iTunes store, then I went and found it on amazon and bought. The iTunes browsing experience is a lot nicer IMHO than the amazon web store.
What with regard to variable pricing you mean?
What variable pricing? People bring this up, but I didn't see different prices for different songs like iTunes fans alledge.
Here are two things Apple is selling that people don't want:
- AAC files (AA-what now?)
I've always thought that the MPEG made a huge mistake in not calling AAC "mp4". If they had, then everybody would realise that AAC is the successor to mp3.
I can't take the iTunes store seriously with the vast majority of the MP3's ripped at a mediocre 128 kbit rate.
The iTunes store doesn't use mp3, it uses AAC which is a much more efficient codec. Have you ever performed a double-blind comparison between a 128 kbps AAC and uncompressed audio? The comparison is much more favourable than between 128 kbps mp3 and uncompressed.
I've always thought that the MPEG made a huge mistake in not calling AAC "mp4". If they had, then everybody would realise that AAC is the successor to mp3.
Mp3 isn't an official name either. Apple probably could have just called it MP4 if they wanted to.
The iTunes store doesn't use mp3, it uses AAC which is a much more efficient codec. Have you ever performed a double-blind comparison between a 128 kbps AAC and uncompressed audio? The comparison is much more favourable than between 128 kbps mp3 and uncompressed.
Even so, most of the reports I see say that Amazon's 256kbps VBR mp3 is quite a bit better than iTunes' 128 AAC CBR, and not that far from iTunes' 256 AAC CBR.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1327...03/emusic.html
The iTunes store doesn't use mp3, it uses AAC which is a much more efficient codec. Have you ever performed a double-blind comparison between a 128 kbps AAC and uncompressed audio? The comparison is much more favourable than between 128 kbps mp3 and uncompressed.
Actually yes, and to both the Fraunhoffer and LAME MP3 encodings at many bit rates as well as variable bit rates.
I keep music I care about in lossless formats for streaming to my main audio system, and use MP3's for the ipod (iphone too) and for less critical streaming to background systems.
I've spent a lot of time and effort trying to understand the differences and the trade-offs of the different codecs. I also spent a bit of time to get the ripping process up to my standards. that means ripping the CD with either Exact Audio Copy or CDparanoia, then operating on the resulting data. The process of getting a good rip from the physical medium is harder than many people think to get right, particularly with older disks.
Yes you are right, MP4 is better, but still MP4 at 128 kbits is still more marginal than variable bit rate LAME encoded MP3 at 250 kbit average files. It's pretty obvious even on questionable sound systems.
Sheldon
They are catching up because they are selling non-DRM'ed MP3s.
Agreed.
Here are two things Apple is selling that people don't want:
- AAC files (AA-what now?)
- DRM
Disagreed.
People don't want? Then how has Apple sold more than 3 billion songs so far? Either people did want those or didn't care. Your claim is especially dubious given that people have always had a way to get non-AAC, non-DRM music into iTunes and onto their iPods by buying and ripping CDs, yet they have still purchased over 3 billion songs.
Agreed.
Disagreed.
People don't want? Then how has Apple sold more than 3 billion songs so far? Either people did want those or didn't care. Your claim is especially dubious given that people have always had a way to get non-AAC, non-DRM music into iTunes and onto their iPods by buying and ripping CDs, yet they have still purchased over 3 billion songs.
4 billion
Seems Amazon was lying according to emusic:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1327...03/emusic.html
I think it's likely they're both trying to frame their arguments. The Yahoo article isn't a press release, but they don't say exactly how they know Amazon is #2. There is a hint there though, they do cite some SoundScan numbers in part of the article. Amazon might be #2 in terms of Feb 08 sales, eMusic is comparing the amount of music they sold since Amazon started their service, which Amazon started out with no customer base in that business. Another thing to keep in mind is that eMusic works out to about half to a third the cost per track, so the dollar figures may end up changing the order vs. the track figures.
Edit: I think I found it. It's not Amazon, but the labels:
"Amazon's (AMZN) MP3 store — which sells only songs without copy protection — has quietly become No. 2 in digital sales since opening nearly six months ago, say the four major labels"
I don't know if the big four sell much through eMusic. So eMusic probably doesn't figure into their sales.
Hey Caliminius...
I don't think the free downloads are accounted for, but free tokens (which count as sales ARE counted in) and do you know how many songs were given away through PEPSI-AMAZON.. just do a google search and have a look yourself.. it's 1 billion songs!!! (1,000,000,000)
Has Apple ever stated that the free songs are not counted as sales? Unless you can say for certain that the free songs don't count, there's the potential of a good portion of iTunes "sales" to not really be "sales" at all. I used to download them every week and they showed up in my account history just like any other purchase.
As for the Pepsi - Amazon giveaway, it's a potential 1 billion songs. How many people are actually doing it? How many points get tossed in the trash every day? Plus those points can also be used to purchase videos from Unbox so who knows how many go that way. So what portion of that 1 billion will actually be claimed?
Many companies sell products to themselves, I suspect this is no exception.
Sheldon
The analyst group notes that the percentage of respondents looking to buy a Mac has only dropped slightly from all-time highs set in January, with 31 percent of notebook purchasers (down 2 percent) and 28 percent of prospective desktop buyers (down 1 percent) intending to pick up a Mac.
Isn't that missing the point? Or proving the opposite
If sales of computers are decreasing overall - then for Mac sales to stay strong, the percentage of notebook purchasers intending to pick up a Mac would have to increase. To have both the numbers of overall buyers decrease AND the percent wanting Mac to decrease... that'd have to mean a reduction in sales.
Or was there something else, that I missed?
I would imagine the GPS functionality will be Assisted GPS. Most of the work is done on servers which can be faster and more reliable. This saves battery life and extra equipment in the phone itself.
Yeah, battery life will be hard, even though I imagine great strides will have been made in the last 12 months on both GPS and 3.5G wireless.
Assisted GPS (reading wikipedia) ... sounds like it's becoming common in the US - reduced computing power required and better coverage indoors. It also can use a cell tower to get an approximate location.
edit: Check out Enhanced GPS too (eGPS).
I would be surprised if Apple didn't keep the current "locate me" function. When you're indoors it wouldn't need satellite coverage. I would hope that your iPhone would also be able to note the GPS location against the local wireless access points & cell coverage - and send an update to the skyhookwireless servers. So if a GPS'd iPhone came to your house and located itself, a week later non-GPS iPhones and iPod Touch would discover where they are.
ps. SkyHookWireless have a program for Firefox called "Loki" which allows you to click a little green apple icon to find your location based on Wireless Access Point. If it can't locate you, it asks you to enter your address (if you know it) which it then uses to update their location database. Personally, for my own locations I've used iStumbler to find a local access point MAC address, and go to http://skyhookwireless.com/howitworks/submit_ap.php to submit them, it seems more accurate.