Dude, if you think you would be able to tell the difference between a 128Kbps & 256Kbps MP3, check this site out & you will see how wrong you are http://mp3ornot.com/
I can easily tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and 256kbps MP3. But it depends on the music that you've encoded. I've heard many horrible sounding tracks with 128kbps MP3. Its a high pitched warbling of high pitched percussion that I most often hear. Its one of those things, you could listen to a track and never hear the artifacts, but once you hear it, its hard to ignore it.
I've even heard artifacts in 256kbps MP3, but only in one segment of one track. I've tried with 128kbps AAC to hear any artifacts and it has always sounded perfect to me. But I haven't been as exhaustive testing, and it may just be that I haven't recognized how they sound. Once I do, I may hear it more often.
There is no "uncompressed data" in either AAC or MP3. Its all psychoacoustic encoding algorithms with lose lots of the original music. Its all a matter of which algorithm tricks you better into thinking you hear all the music. AAC is clearly much superior to MP3.
I agree with all of that. But that still doesn't mean that the advantage of AAC is great enough that 128 bit AAC sounds better than 256 bit MP3.
No I totally agree. Amazon has a pretty strong base service going.. if they get their act together and open internationally, they have a good chance of giving iTunes a real run for it's money. (And competition is always a good thing in my books.)
Jimzip
Obviously almost everyone would say that competition is better for consumers, but only if it is fair competition. iTunes succeeded against all the rest because they offered a better customer experience and because the others were... basically crap. The present situation with the labels almost tying iTunes hands behind their back to try and get Amazon ahead offends my sense of fair play really. I know some people would argue that all's fair in love, war and money but it gets me steaming and I wouldn't use anything else out of principle.
Obviously almost everyone would say that competition is better for consumers, but only if it is fair competition. iTunes succeeded against all the rest because they offered a better customer experience and because the others were... basically crap. The present situation with the labels almost tying iTunes hands behind their back to try and get Amazon ahead offends my sense of fair play really. I know some people would argue that all's fair in love, war and money but it gets me steaming and I wouldn't use anything else out of principle.
Just my .02c
I think a major issue that may hold back iTunes in the future is the lack of availability internationally as you suggest. I used to live in Australia which has an iTunes store so I had no problems buying from Apple. Then I moved to Thailand and whilst I had my aussie bank credit card I could still buy from Australia. Now I only have Thai bank credit cards and am unable to purchase from iTunes anywhere. This forces me to go elsewhere to buy online!
Does anyone know why this country limitation is placed on buying from iTunes??
I think a major issue that may hold back iTunes in the future is the lack of availability internationally as you suggest. I used to live in Australia which has an iTunes store so I had no problems buying from Apple. Then I moved to Thailand and whilst I had my aussie bank credit card I could still buy from Australia. Now I only have Thai bank credit cards and am unable to purchase from iTunes anywhere. This forces me to go elsewhere to buy online!
Does anyone know why this country limitation is placed on buying from iTunes??
Well I couldn't comment about Australia (being an NZer ), but as far as I know, the country limitation comes from the labels trying to screw us... again! Sigh. I hate to sound like a broken record (!ouch!), but it is easy to get annoyed at the rules imposed on us by the fat cats.
Apple have stated that they would love to have one global store and obviously it would be a lot easier for anyone to run a global store rather than pandering to each country's equivalent to the RIAA. Wouldn't it be great if anyone could legally download whatever music they liked from any country...?
I wonder how many of these Amazon customers also have an iDevice, which is Apple's bread and butter.
Amazon knows that most of their customers do, which is why they have publically stated that their songs will automatically sync into iTunes.
They know where the sales are going.
Quote:
From the way the articles have read over the years, it seems that Apple only has control of the pricing, not the bit rate or DRM. If they did, I too would have thought they would have upped the quality.
Though, if they do make 256Kbps the new minimum at the iTS, would they then have to half their iPod capacity listings or could they still say "x many songs at 128Kbps"?
I really don't know.
It's a good question. I suppose they would make some statement like:
128KB/s equals a capacity of 100,000 songs.
256KB/s higher quality equals a capacity of 50,000 songs.
I don't recall reading Apple claiming that. AAC is a better codec that MP3, but there is no question that a 256Kbps MP3 contains more uncompressed data than a 128Kbps AAC file.
128 AAC is usualyl considered to be about equal to 160-192 MP3.
But, there is a newer MP3 encoding that's been around for almost two years that's about equal to AAC. I don't know who may be using it though, or whether it's compatible with standard MP3 decoders, but somewhere amongst all my software, I have a copy of the encoding software..
There is no "uncompressed data" in either AAC or MP3. Its all psychoacoustic encoding algorithms with lose lots of the original music. Its all a matter of which algorithm tricks you better into thinking you hear all the music. AAC is clearly much superior to MP3.
What he means is that 256 throws away less data than does 128.
While AAC is better, it's not that much better. And variable rate MP3 is better than fixed rate AAC of the same bitrate (remember that variable means just that, but the average rate is about the same).
I can easily tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and 256kbps MP3. But it depends on the music that you've encoded. I've heard many horrible sounding tracks with 128kbps MP3. Its a high pitched warbling of high pitched percussion that I most often hear. Its one of those things, you could listen to a track and never hear the artifacts, but once you hear it, its hard to ignore it.
I've even heard artifacts in 256kbps MP3, but only in one segment of one track. I've tried with 128kbps AAC to hear any artifacts and it has always sounded perfect to me. But I haven't been as exhaustive testing, and it may just be that I haven't recognized how they sound. Once I do, I may hear it more often.
The high frequencies go first. Music with little high energy high frequencies sound the best.
Obviously almost everyone would say that competition is better for consumers, but only if it is fair competition. iTunes succeeded against all the rest because they offered a better customer experience and because the others were... basically crap. The present situation with the labels almost tying iTunes hands behind their back to try and get Amazon ahead offends my sense of fair play really. I know some people would argue that all's fair in love, war and money but it gets me steaming and I wouldn't use anything else out of principle.
Just my .02c
Don't get me wrong here, if that's actually the case then I'll happily steam alongside you.
But why would the labels do that? Understandably they want music in as many outlets as possible, but why would they hamper one while boosting the other, why not allow them both to offer the goods? How much do the labels earn from the sales of tracks on iTunes compared to the (cheaper) amazon tracks? If the labels are helping Amazon out to get ahead when iTunes already has the best service, an established (and, quite frankly, huge) customer base, and a higher price per track, then that doesn't really make sense does it?
Don't get me wrong here, if that's actually the case then I'll happily steam alongside you.
But why would the labels do that? Understandably they want music in as many outlets as possible, but why would they hamper one while boosting the other, why not allow them both to offer music? How much do the labels earn from the sales of tracks on iTunes compared to the (cheaper) amazon tracks? If the labels are helping Amazon out to get ahead when iTunes already has the best service, an established (and, quite frankly, huge) customer base, then that doesn't really make sense does it?
Perhaps there's something here we're missing.
Jimzip
What you are missing is that Apple is setting the pricing for music. The labels want popular music to be more expensive because of it's much higher demand despite no lack of supply. The allowance of higher bit rate audio with no DRM is a long play by the studios to bring iTunes Store down from its throne. This article indicates that it's not working out for them. There is one studio exec who called Jobs crazy for even suggesting DRM-free music, just to offer it to Amazon a few months later. It's a strategy that doesn't appear to be working out as they wished as iTS doesn't seem to have lost neither customers nor additional supporting studios, though they have not gone DRM free either.
What is interesting is that despite the incorrect usage of monopoly this week regarding Macs, the iTunes Store has many characteristics of a pure monopoly.
What you are missing is that Apple is setting the pricing for music. The labels want popular music to be more expensive because of it's much higher demand despite no lack of supply. The allowance of higher bit rate audio with no DRM is a long play by the studios to bring iTunes Store down from its throne. This article indicates that it's not working out for them. There is one studio exec who called Jobs crazy for even suggesting DRM-free music, just to offer it to Amazon a few months later. It's a strategy that doesn't appear to be working out as they wished as iTS doesn't seem to have lost neither customers nor additional supporting studios, though they have not gone DRM free either.
Right right, I understand.
I just went and looked at Amazon's pricing too, looks like only albums are cheaper... tracks are the same as iTunes.
Carry on! (And sorry for clouding the discussion!)
What you are missing is that Apple is setting the pricing for music. The labels want popular music to be more expensive because of it's much higher demand despite no lack of supply. The allowance of higher bit rate audio with no DRM is a long play by the studios to bring iTunes Store down from its throne. This article indicates that it's not working out for them. There is one studio exec who called Jobs crazy for even suggesting DRM-free music, just to offer it to Amazon a few months later. It's a strategy that doesn't appear to be working out as they wished as iTS doesn't seem to have lost neither customers nor additional supporting studios, though they have not gone DRM free either.
What is interesting is that despite the incorrect usage of monopoly this week regarding Macs, the iTunes Store has many characteristics of a pure monopoly.
Also, Amazon, like Walmart, offers the music more cheaply than Apple. That never gave traction o Walmart, but Amazon seems to be catching on.
Also, Amazon, like Walmart, offers the music more cheaply than Apple. That never gave traction o Walmart, but Amazon seems to be catching on.
Which is why I think Apple may be facing future monoploy charges with iTS and may have to let the studios eventually have some control over pricing.
Quote:
No close substitutes: A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolized product.
A price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied.
If the studios can prove that the current pricing generates so little profit to them that it is practically worthless and that upstarts can't gain much ground even when offering higher quality and less restrictions at a lower price, then they may have a case.
But I don't think they will win since, IMO, people choose iTunes Store for its convenience. Apple can also show that the labels are trying to remain a cartel by artificially inflating prices on popular music when there is no additional cost involved. Virtual ticket scalpers. Apple could also show their desire to be DRM-free if they pull the "iPod/iTunes Store lock-in" argument.
Then again, MS made IE a convenient choice and still lost the antitrust case. Still, I think the RIAA has too many skeletons in its closet to want to take this to court.
PS: I wonder if the reason Amazon is catching on is because its userbase is more savvy with using the internet than Walmart's customers. Or could this surge all be a result of the SuperBowl/Pepsi giveaway. Anyone know what is different between Amazon and Walmart's setup? Id est, studios, track numbers, bit rate, price, DRM?
Which is why I think Apple may be facing future monoploy charges with iTS and may have to let the studios eventually have some control over pricing.
If the studios can prove that the current pricing generates so little profit to them that it is practically worthless and that upstarts can't gain much ground even when offering higher quality and less restrictions at a lower price, then they may have a case.
But I don't think they will win since, IMO, people choose iTunes Store for its convenience. Apple can also show that the labels are trying to remain a cartel by artificially inflating prices on popular music when there is no additional cost involved. Virtual ticket scalpers. Apple could also show their desire to be DRM-free if they pull the "iPod/iTunes Store lock-in" argument.
Then again, MS made IE a convenient choice and still lost the antitrust case. Still, I think the RIAA has too many skeletons in its closet to want to take this to court.
PS: I wonder if the reason Amazon is catching on is because its userbase is more savvy with using the internet than Walmart's customers. Or could this surge all be a result of the SuperBowl/Pepsi giveaway. Anyone know what is different between Amazon and Walmart's setup? Id est, studios, track numbers, bit rate, price, DRM?
Don't forget that Amazon is picking up steam. If their sales continue to increase, charges against iTunes won't be possible.
Apple might also be able to charge the music companies of a criminal conspiracy to deprive Apple of competitive offerings. Racketeering charges could also be brought it it could be shown that the companies have engaged in criminal conduct by conspiring.
So its really very hard to say what will happen, but I presume that nothing will.
Even if Apple does get a monopoly, it's a "natural" monopoly. Those are allowed.
Apple never forced the companies to go along with the idea, and the growth of Amazon, as well as subscription companies, shows that there are other ways to market, and sell, their products.
Comments
Dude, if you think you would be able to tell the difference between a 128Kbps & 256Kbps MP3, check this site out & you will see how wrong you are http://mp3ornot.com/
I can easily tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and 256kbps MP3. But it depends on the music that you've encoded. I've heard many horrible sounding tracks with 128kbps MP3. Its a high pitched warbling of high pitched percussion that I most often hear. Its one of those things, you could listen to a track and never hear the artifacts, but once you hear it, its hard to ignore it.
I've even heard artifacts in 256kbps MP3, but only in one segment of one track. I've tried with 128kbps AAC to hear any artifacts and it has always sounded perfect to me. But I haven't been as exhaustive testing, and it may just be that I haven't recognized how they sound. Once I do, I may hear it more often.
There is no "uncompressed data" in either AAC or MP3. Its all psychoacoustic encoding algorithms with lose lots of the original music. Its all a matter of which algorithm tricks you better into thinking you hear all the music. AAC is clearly much superior to MP3.
I agree with all of that. But that still doesn't mean that the advantage of AAC is great enough that 128 bit AAC sounds better than 256 bit MP3.
No I totally agree. Amazon has a pretty strong base service going.. if they get their act together and open internationally, they have a good chance of giving iTunes a real run for it's money. (And competition is always a good thing in my books.)
Jimzip
Obviously almost everyone would say that competition is better for consumers, but only if it is fair competition. iTunes succeeded against all the rest because they offered a better customer experience and because the others were... basically crap. The present situation with the labels almost tying iTunes hands behind their back to try and get Amazon ahead offends my sense of fair play really. I know some people would argue that all's fair in love, war and money but it gets me steaming and I wouldn't use anything else out of principle.
Just my .02c
Obviously almost everyone would say that competition is better for consumers, but only if it is fair competition. iTunes succeeded against all the rest because they offered a better customer experience and because the others were... basically crap. The present situation with the labels almost tying iTunes hands behind their back to try and get Amazon ahead offends my sense of fair play really. I know some people would argue that all's fair in love, war and money but it gets me steaming and I wouldn't use anything else out of principle.
Just my .02c
I think a major issue that may hold back iTunes in the future is the lack of availability internationally as you suggest. I used to live in Australia which has an iTunes store so I had no problems buying from Apple. Then I moved to Thailand and whilst I had my aussie bank credit card I could still buy from Australia. Now I only have Thai bank credit cards and am unable to purchase from iTunes anywhere. This forces me to go elsewhere to buy online!
Does anyone know why this country limitation is placed on buying from iTunes??
I think a major issue that may hold back iTunes in the future is the lack of availability internationally as you suggest. I used to live in Australia which has an iTunes store so I had no problems buying from Apple. Then I moved to Thailand and whilst I had my aussie bank credit card I could still buy from Australia. Now I only have Thai bank credit cards and am unable to purchase from iTunes anywhere. This forces me to go elsewhere to buy online!
Does anyone know why this country limitation is placed on buying from iTunes??
Well I couldn't comment about Australia (being an NZer
Apple have stated that they would love to have one global store and obviously it would be a lot easier for anyone to run a global store rather than pandering to each country's equivalent to the RIAA. Wouldn't it be great if anyone could legally download whatever music they liked from any country...?
/end dream
I wonder how many of these Amazon customers also have an iDevice, which is Apple's bread and butter.
Amazon knows that most of their customers do, which is why they have publically stated that their songs will automatically sync into iTunes.
They know where the sales are going.
From the way the articles have read over the years, it seems that Apple only has control of the pricing, not the bit rate or DRM. If they did, I too would have thought they would have upped the quality.
Though, if they do make 256Kbps the new minimum at the iTS, would they then have to half their iPod capacity listings or could they still say "x many songs at 128Kbps"?
I really don't know.
It's a good question. I suppose they would make some statement like:
128KB/s equals a capacity of 100,000 songs.
256KB/s higher quality equals a capacity of 50,000 songs.
I don't recall reading Apple claiming that. AAC is a better codec that MP3, but there is no question that a 256Kbps MP3 contains more uncompressed data than a 128Kbps AAC file.
128 AAC is usualyl considered to be about equal to 160-192 MP3.
But, there is a newer MP3 encoding that's been around for almost two years that's about equal to AAC. I don't know who may be using it though, or whether it's compatible with standard MP3 decoders, but somewhere amongst all my software, I have a copy of the encoding software..
That doesn't mean anything.
There is no "uncompressed data" in either AAC or MP3. Its all psychoacoustic encoding algorithms with lose lots of the original music. Its all a matter of which algorithm tricks you better into thinking you hear all the music. AAC is clearly much superior to MP3.
What he means is that 256 throws away less data than does 128.
While AAC is better, it's not that much better. And variable rate MP3 is better than fixed rate AAC of the same bitrate (remember that variable means just that, but the average rate is about the same).
I can easily tell the difference between 128kbps MP3 and 256kbps MP3. But it depends on the music that you've encoded. I've heard many horrible sounding tracks with 128kbps MP3. Its a high pitched warbling of high pitched percussion that I most often hear. Its one of those things, you could listen to a track and never hear the artifacts, but once you hear it, its hard to ignore it.
I've even heard artifacts in 256kbps MP3, but only in one segment of one track. I've tried with 128kbps AAC to hear any artifacts and it has always sounded perfect to me. But I haven't been as exhaustive testing, and it may just be that I haven't recognized how they sound. Once I do, I may hear it more often.
The high frequencies go first. Music with little high energy high frequencies sound the best.
I agree with all of that. But that still doesn't mean that the advantage of AAC is great enough that 128 bit AAC sounds better than 256 bit MP3.
It isn't.
Amazon will never measure-up to Apple's iTunes.
True. They now offer more for less.
Obviously almost everyone would say that competition is better for consumers, but only if it is fair competition. iTunes succeeded against all the rest because they offered a better customer experience and because the others were... basically crap. The present situation with the labels almost tying iTunes hands behind their back to try and get Amazon ahead offends my sense of fair play really. I know some people would argue that all's fair in love, war and money but it gets me steaming and I wouldn't use anything else out of principle.
Just my .02c
Don't get me wrong here, if that's actually the case then I'll happily steam alongside you.
But why would the labels do that? Understandably they want music in as many outlets as possible, but why would they hamper one while boosting the other, why not allow them both to offer the goods? How much do the labels earn from the sales of tracks on iTunes compared to the (cheaper) amazon tracks? If the labels are helping Amazon out to get ahead when iTunes already has the best service, an established (and, quite frankly, huge) customer base, and a higher price per track, then that doesn't really make sense does it?
Perhaps there's something here we're missing.
Jimzip
Don't get me wrong here, if that's actually the case then I'll happily steam alongside you.
But why would the labels do that? Understandably they want music in as many outlets as possible, but why would they hamper one while boosting the other, why not allow them both to offer music? How much do the labels earn from the sales of tracks on iTunes compared to the (cheaper) amazon tracks? If the labels are helping Amazon out to get ahead when iTunes already has the best service, an established (and, quite frankly, huge) customer base, then that doesn't really make sense does it?
Perhaps there's something here we're missing.
Jimzip
What you are missing is that Apple is setting the pricing for music. The labels want popular music to be more expensive because of it's much higher demand despite no lack of supply. The allowance of higher bit rate audio with no DRM is a long play by the studios to bring iTunes Store down from its throne. This article indicates that it's not working out for them. There is one studio exec who called Jobs crazy for even suggesting DRM-free music, just to offer it to Amazon a few months later. It's a strategy that doesn't appear to be working out as they wished as iTS doesn't seem to have lost neither customers nor additional supporting studios, though they have not gone DRM free either.
What is interesting is that despite the incorrect usage of monopoly this week regarding Macs, the iTunes Store has many characteristics of a pure monopoly.
What you are missing is that Apple is setting the pricing for music. The labels want popular music to be more expensive because of it's much higher demand despite no lack of supply. The allowance of higher bit rate audio with no DRM is a long play by the studios to bring iTunes Store down from its throne. This article indicates that it's not working out for them. There is one studio exec who called Jobs crazy for even suggesting DRM-free music, just to offer it to Amazon a few months later. It's a strategy that doesn't appear to be working out as they wished as iTS doesn't seem to have lost neither customers nor additional supporting studios, though they have not gone DRM free either.
Right right, I understand.
I just went and looked at Amazon's pricing too, looks like only albums are cheaper... tracks are the same as iTunes.
Carry on! (And sorry for clouding the discussion!)
Jimzip
What you are missing is that Apple is setting the pricing for music. The labels want popular music to be more expensive because of it's much higher demand despite no lack of supply. The allowance of higher bit rate audio with no DRM is a long play by the studios to bring iTunes Store down from its throne. This article indicates that it's not working out for them. There is one studio exec who called Jobs crazy for even suggesting DRM-free music, just to offer it to Amazon a few months later. It's a strategy that doesn't appear to be working out as they wished as iTS doesn't seem to have lost neither customers nor additional supporting studios, though they have not gone DRM free either.
What is interesting is that despite the incorrect usage of monopoly this week regarding Macs, the iTunes Store has many characteristics of a pure monopoly.
Also, Amazon, like Walmart, offers the music more cheaply than Apple. That never gave traction o Walmart, but Amazon seems to be catching on.
Also, Amazon, like Walmart, offers the music more cheaply than Apple. That never gave traction o Walmart, but Amazon seems to be catching on.
Which is why I think Apple may be facing future monoploy charges with iTS and may have to let the studios eventually have some control over pricing.
No close substitutes: A monopoly is not merely the state of having control over a product; it also means that there is no real alternative to the monopolized product.
A price maker: Because a single firm controls the total supply in a pure monopoly, it is able to exert a significant degree of control over the price by changing the quantity supplied.
If the studios can prove that the current pricing generates so little profit to them that it is practically worthless and that upstarts can't gain much ground even when offering higher quality and less restrictions at a lower price, then they may have a case.
But I don't think they will win since, IMO, people choose iTunes Store for its convenience. Apple can also show that the labels are trying to remain a cartel by artificially inflating prices on popular music when there is no additional cost involved. Virtual ticket scalpers. Apple could also show their desire to be DRM-free if they pull the "iPod/iTunes Store lock-in" argument.
Then again, MS made IE a convenient choice and still lost the antitrust case. Still, I think the RIAA has too many skeletons in its closet to want to take this to court.
PS: I wonder if the reason Amazon is catching on is because its userbase is more savvy with using the internet than Walmart's customers. Or could this surge all be a result of the SuperBowl/Pepsi giveaway. Anyone know what is different between Amazon and Walmart's setup? Id est, studios, track numbers, bit rate, price, DRM?
Which is why I think Apple may be facing future monoploy charges with iTS and may have to let the studios eventually have some control over pricing.
If the studios can prove that the current pricing generates so little profit to them that it is practically worthless and that upstarts can't gain much ground even when offering higher quality and less restrictions at a lower price, then they may have a case.
But I don't think they will win since, IMO, people choose iTunes Store for its convenience. Apple can also show that the labels are trying to remain a cartel by artificially inflating prices on popular music when there is no additional cost involved. Virtual ticket scalpers. Apple could also show their desire to be DRM-free if they pull the "iPod/iTunes Store lock-in" argument.
Then again, MS made IE a convenient choice and still lost the antitrust case. Still, I think the RIAA has too many skeletons in its closet to want to take this to court.
PS: I wonder if the reason Amazon is catching on is because its userbase is more savvy with using the internet than Walmart's customers. Or could this surge all be a result of the SuperBowl/Pepsi giveaway. Anyone know what is different between Amazon and Walmart's setup? Id est, studios, track numbers, bit rate, price, DRM?
Don't forget that Amazon is picking up steam. If their sales continue to increase, charges against iTunes won't be possible.
Apple might also be able to charge the music companies of a criminal conspiracy to deprive Apple of competitive offerings. Racketeering charges could also be brought it it could be shown that the companies have engaged in criminal conduct by conspiring.
So its really very hard to say what will happen, but I presume that nothing will.
Even if Apple does get a monopoly, it's a "natural" monopoly. Those are allowed.
Apple never forced the companies to go along with the idea, and the growth of Amazon, as well as subscription companies, shows that there are other ways to market, and sell, their products.