Well duh!!!!!!! You think? This is nothing new except to the iPhone. OTA downloads have been available in other phones for a while. Just because Apple sees this as a new "oh wow" gimmick does not mean they are innovating it. What Apple should do is reconfig the iTunes store and current iPhones to allow downloads OTA regardless. If I have unlimited data, what do I care if it takes 6 or 7 mins to download a song?
Why do some people always think that everything is so simple?
They don't do it because the cell companies have them tied up with contracts saying that only the cell companies can sell songs over their networks.
Apple didn't try before, because EDGE is really too slow. That's why they did it with WiFi. One, it's fast enough, and, two, it's off network, so the cell company can't do anything about it.
But now, with 3G, they want to sell songs thaere as well.
Despite what you say, no one is doing this right now. The cell companies control all song selling over their networks, and the cash goes through their hands, with a big chunk remaining in them.
Apple is trying to work around that as much as possible.
To tell you the truth, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Most sane people would simply wait until they were close to a WiFi connection to download a song versus paying more for it over a cellular network (if it came down to that).
Seriously, how many times are you out somewhere, with no connection to a WiFi network, and then say all of a sudden, "I MUST HAVE THAT SONG" or "I MUST HAVE THAT ALBUM"?
Let Apple and the music companies fight it out, I don't think that's it's anything that WE should be losing sleep over. If Apple in the end looses the fight and has to charge more for cellular downloads, so be it -- I won't be stupid enough to pay the higher price anyway.
In fact, I'll just stick to buying used CDs from Half.com like I always have in the past. Pay a few dollars for the CD, then rip them to MP3s myself. It's much cheaper than going through iTunes and opens me up to a vast library or music.
My iPod touch hasn't complained once about this arrangement
Your missing the point. I think the point is that Apple's present contract does not allow them to allow downloads over mobile data. This is probably why the iPhone is limited to WiFi only. I cannot believe it's because of the speed when they are going to allow people to download applications and games in the App Store over EDGE.
I don't see this being mentioned as an Oh Wow feature. It's just a nice feature that Apple are trying to add.
If you look at Nokia, SE, and providers music stores they are all vastly more expensive than iTunes. Clearly the music labels want to push Apple up to that sort of pricing for mobile downloads. Why they insist on more money for mobile downloads I have no idea. Probably because if it's too cheap they see it killing off their CD cashcow because it would be just so damn convenient.
P.S. What does Amazon have to do with iTunes OTA downloads? Seeing as Apple don't allow Apps to interface with iTunes on Mobile OS X there isn't going to be an Amazon OTA store. Not unless Apple decide to allow it. Also the Amazon MP3 store is only available in the US, not much use for the rest of the world.
Generally, both programs, and games, are smaller than the average song, so download times are shorter. Not too many phone/PDA programs equal the 4.5 MB that a typical song (128K) is.
Actually, in terms of quality (for the same bit rate) and library size iTunes is still better than Amazon. Personally, 10c is not that much of saving.
The availability of comparable bitrates is limited to something like 20% of iTunes' inventory. That tidbit of information isn't very useful for the rest. I realize it's probably not Apple's fault, but the reality remains.
........free us from record label oppression--i just won't or let my family download ringtones, my wife has a program that can take any itunes song and cut a segment and send to her phone....got it at apple store. yea.
I can't see the point of paying for a music download on a mobile. On my Sony Ericsson I transfer songs from my ripped CD's on iTunes to it, which I play if I'm waiting somewhere, and I use some loud sounding tunes for my ringtones and alarms, which the Sony allows you to do. This way you have a wider choice of tunes to choose from, instead of the limited choice supplied with a phone. In the past, it's also been annoying when upgrading to another phone to find another set of different and useless ringtones.
When I get an iPod Touch soon, I hope to be able to do the same, but I guess I'll have to use some cracked software to be able to do this, as Apple being Apple would make you pay for the privilege. Having to pay for ringtones is just a rip-off as far as I'm concerned
Your missing the point. I think the point is that Apple's present contract does not allow them to allow downloads over mobile data. This is probably why the iPhone is limited to WiFi only. I cannot believe it's because of the speed when they are going to allow people to download applications and games in the App Store over EDGE.
Good point but unlimited data is unlimited data. I should (in theory) be allowed to download as I please regardless. I am not sure about the contract thing you mentioned. You might be right but I do not think the terms have been released.
Quote:
I don't see this being mentioned as an Oh Wow feature. It's just a nice feature that Apple are trying to add.
I was mentioning in the vernacular of it being something new. It's not. It has been done before.
Quote:
If you look at Nokia, SE, and providers music stores they are all vastly more expensive than iTunes. Clearly the music labels want to push Apple up to that sort of pricing for mobile downloads. Why they insist on more money for mobile downloads I have no idea. Probably because if it's too cheap they see it killing off their CD cashcow because it would be just so damn convenient.
To be honest, I have not checked lately. I know that Nokia is now offering (or will offer) a bundled product: "Comes with Music" type of deal. Not sure how this will impact Apple. I do not think all the details have been released.
Quote:
P.S. What does Amazon have to do with iTunes OTA downloads? Seeing as Apple don't allow Apps to interface with iTunes on Mobile OS X there isn't going to be an Amazon OTA store. Not unless Apple decide to allow it. Also the Amazon MP3 store is only available in the US, not much use for the rest of the world.
I pay for US Amazon. I was under the impression that the OP was based in the US. If not, oh well.
Generally, both programs, and games, are smaller than the average song, so download times are shorter. Not too many phone/PDA programs equal the 4.5 MB that a typical song (128K) is.
While I can agree on the program side, I cannot on games. OK there might be some games which aren't overly graphics or sound intensive but I also suspect there will be a reasonable amount of games with large 3D textures and good quality music. After all the iPhone will be the first phone (Plus the iPod Touch) where the developers can write using OpenGL ES without cutting down their target market hugely.
Seeing as you've got at least a 4GB flash drive on all the devices (Minus OS) you've got the storage and the phone has 128MB of RAM. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see a few 5+MB games. It really should be capable of some impressive graphics way beyond what we've ever seen on a phone before.
Call me redundant but I'm not sure why it matters how you download songs. You can use the internet "over the air." Why should the content owners have any say in which network you can use to access the store.
They agreed to sell over the internet. That is the internet.
Actually, in terms of quality (for the same bit rate) and library size iTunes is still better than Amazon. Personally, 10c is not that much of saving.
In terms of bit rates most if not all of Amazon's songs are of a higher bit rate and I will take that $.10 saving. Add up 8 or 9 and I have a free song for the price of 1 iTunes song.
Call me redundant but I'm not sure why it matters how you download songs. You can use the internet "over the air." Why should the content owners have any say in which network you can use to access the store.
They agreed to sell over the internet. That is the internet.
They don't do it because the cell companies have them tied up with contracts saying that only the cell companies can sell songs over their networks.
Apple didn't try before, because EDGE is really too slow. That's why they did it with WiFi. One, it's fast enough, and, two, it's off network, so the cell company can't do anything about it.
But now, with 3G, they want to sell songs thaere as well.
Despite what you say, no one is doing this right now. The cell companies control all song selling over their networks, and the cash goes through their hands, with a big chunk remaining in them.
Apple is trying to work around that as much as possible.
Data is data. If I want to sit and wait 10 mins for a song to download that is my biz, at least give me the chance to do it. SImplicity has nothing to do with it. It is all about choice.
To tell you the truth, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Most sane people would simply wait until they were close to a WiFi connection to download a song versus paying more for it over a cellular network (if it came down to that).
Seriously, how many times are you out somewhere, with no connection to a WiFi network, and then say all of a sudden, "I MUST HAVE THAT SONG" or "I MUST HAVE THAT ALBUM"?
Let Apple and the music companies fight it out, I don't think that's it's anything that WE should be losing sleep over. If Apple in the end looses the fight and has to charge more for cellular downloads, so be it -- I won't be stupid enough to pay the higher price anyway.
In fact, I'll just stick to buying used CDs from Half.com like I always have in the past. Pay a few dollars for the CD, then rip them to MP3s myself. It's much cheaper than going through iTunes and opens me up to a vast library or music.
My iPod touch hasn't complained once about this arrangement
The availability of comparable bitrates is limited to something like 20% of iTunes' inventory. That tidbit of information isn't very useful for the rest. I realize it's probably not Apple's fault, but the reality remains.
Exactly. I know it is not all Apple's fault, but the fact remains, higher bit rates for less money equal a bargain.
You do understand that the only reason why they are doing that is to break itunes?
The point being that they could then RAISE prices to the levels they are crying for.
And, of course, that you are helping them to do that.
Is this another Steve Jobs is looking out for the little guy argument? Steve Jobs is only loyal to the current Mrs. Jobs, his kids, and the shareholders. Steve Jobs is not our friends.
Quote:
By buying from Amazon, people will make it impossible for Apple to get the deal they want.
Is this another Steve Jobs is looking out for the little guy argument? Steve Jobs is only loyal to the current Mrs. Jobs, his kids, and the shareholders. Steve Jobs is not our friends.
Welcome to the biz world. Some win, some lose.
I've got to agree here. Who cares where the songs come from? If they are cheaper and of higher bitrate, then so be it. I don't give a crap about how it affects Apple (Apple is doing just fine if you must know), I'm looking out for my wallet.
As long as it legal and not that much of a hassle to download, it shouldn't really be an issue.
What the hell difference does it make to the music companies whether someone is downloading something over a fixed line or 3G connection? It makes no difference to them at all. It will make a difference to Telco's, but that is about it.
That pretty much sums it up and frankly is what I felt when first reading this thread.
Quote:
Maybe it's just the fact that they are blood sucking scum.
YEP!
Quote:
I hope everyone makes more of an effort to pirate music and that they slowly die.
Well this part I can and will disagree with. The companies certainly need to die there is no doubt at all about that, but that outcome can be assured without dirtying ones self with questionable activities. The answer is to not do business with the record companies and the artists signed with them, that are after this. I do mean to "do business" as like it or not most musicians are in it for the money. Keep them from benefiting form a relationship with the big labels and sooner or later they will get the hint. It is not just the purchase of tracks managed by the record companies either, one has to make sure the artist never benefit from any of their financial efforts while signed with these labels. That means no money spent on concerts, tee shirts or anything else offered up.
While I can agree on the program side, I cannot on games. OK there might be some games which aren't overly graphics or sound intensive but I also suspect there will be a reasonable amount of games with large 3D textures and good quality music. After all the iPhone will be the first phone (Plus the iPod Touch) where the developers can write using OpenGL ES without cutting down their target market hugely.
Seeing as you've got at least a 4GB flash drive on all the devices (Minus OS) you've got the storage and the phone has 128MB of RAM. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see a few 5+MB games. It really should be capable of some impressive graphics way beyond what we've ever seen on a phone before.
That's why I said "most". I'm sure there will be a few. but most will likely be well under 1 MB.
Don't forget that textures and scenery, need be only 480 x 320 at this point. even if they scroll they will be small. figure out how many bits are needed. It's very few.
THe only way I can see giving the record companies more money is if THEY, the record companies can arrange a deal with the operators to guarantee a QoS for all the songs being downloaded via iTunes. As this will never happen, I can not see a way to pay them more money.
Data is data. If I want to sit and wait 10 mins for a song to download that is my biz, at least give me the chance to do it. SImplicity has nothing to do with it. It is all about choice.
Your business is your business to be sure. But network operators see it differently. That's their business, and they have to make a profit, and keep the airwaves open. Sometimes, other than for greed, and I'm not denying that's a part, charging fees prevents people from staying on all the time downloading. If that happens, everyone's rates will go up, or they will start throttling, that is what Cox and Comcast do now with P2P.
That's fine, but don't complain if they are looking out for themselves too.
Quote:
Is this another Steve Jobs is looking out for the little guy argument? Steve Jobs is only loyal to the current Mrs. Jobs, his kids, and the shareholders. Steve Jobs is not our friends.
We've gone through this argument too many times already here.
Companies aren't supposed to look out for the little guy. They are supposed to look out for themselves, their employees, and their investors.
Smart management knows that often the best thing for those three groups is to give the little guy what is the best product, at the best price for what it is.
Apple has done that with iTunes. you can be shortsighted about it, or you can see through the ruse the labels are playing with Amazon.
Quote:
Welcome to the biz world. Some win, some lose.
I'm aware of that son. It's who wins and loses that matter. If the wrong ones win, then WE lose. You want the labels to win this. Good for you.
Comments
Well duh!!!!!!! You think? This is nothing new except to the iPhone. OTA downloads have been available in other phones for a while. Just because Apple sees this as a new "oh wow" gimmick does not mean they are innovating it. What Apple should do is reconfig the iTunes store and current iPhones to allow downloads OTA regardless. If I have unlimited data, what do I care if it takes 6 or 7 mins to download a song?
Why do some people always think that everything is so simple?
If Apple, or the other phone makers could sell songs over the network at 99©, or any reasonable price themselves, don't you think they would be doing it?
They don't do it because the cell companies have them tied up with contracts saying that only the cell companies can sell songs over their networks.
Apple didn't try before, because EDGE is really too slow. That's why they did it with WiFi. One, it's fast enough, and, two, it's off network, so the cell company can't do anything about it.
But now, with 3G, they want to sell songs thaere as well.
Despite what you say, no one is doing this right now. The cell companies control all song selling over their networks, and the cash goes through their hands, with a big chunk remaining in them.
Apple is trying to work around that as much as possible.
Seriously, how many times are you out somewhere, with no connection to a WiFi network, and then say all of a sudden, "I MUST HAVE THAT SONG" or "I MUST HAVE THAT ALBUM"?
Let Apple and the music companies fight it out, I don't think that's it's anything that WE should be losing sleep over. If Apple in the end looses the fight and has to charge more for cellular downloads, so be it -- I won't be stupid enough to pay the higher price anyway.
In fact, I'll just stick to buying used CDs from Half.com like I always have in the past. Pay a few dollars for the CD, then rip them to MP3s myself. It's much cheaper than going through iTunes and opens me up to a vast library or music.
My iPod touch hasn't complained once about this arrangement
Your missing the point. I think the point is that Apple's present contract does not allow them to allow downloads over mobile data. This is probably why the iPhone is limited to WiFi only. I cannot believe it's because of the speed when they are going to allow people to download applications and games in the App Store over EDGE.
I don't see this being mentioned as an Oh Wow feature. It's just a nice feature that Apple are trying to add.
If you look at Nokia, SE, and providers music stores they are all vastly more expensive than iTunes. Clearly the music labels want to push Apple up to that sort of pricing for mobile downloads. Why they insist on more money for mobile downloads I have no idea. Probably because if it's too cheap they see it killing off their CD cashcow because it would be just so damn convenient.
P.S. What does Amazon have to do with iTunes OTA downloads? Seeing as Apple don't allow Apps to interface with iTunes on Mobile OS X there isn't going to be an Amazon OTA store. Not unless Apple decide to allow it. Also the Amazon MP3 store is only available in the US, not much use for the rest of the world.
Generally, both programs, and games, are smaller than the average song, so download times are shorter. Not too many phone/PDA programs equal the 4.5 MB that a typical song (128K) is.
Actually, in terms of quality (for the same bit rate) and library size iTunes is still better than Amazon. Personally, 10c is not that much of saving.
The availability of comparable bitrates is limited to something like 20% of iTunes' inventory. That tidbit of information isn't very useful for the rest. I realize it's probably not Apple's fault, but the reality remains.
........free us from record label oppression--i just won't or let my family download ringtones, my wife has a program that can take any itunes song and cut a segment and send to her phone....got it at apple store. yea.
I can't see the point of paying for a music download on a mobile. On my Sony Ericsson I transfer songs from my ripped CD's on iTunes to it, which I play if I'm waiting somewhere, and I use some loud sounding tunes for my ringtones and alarms, which the Sony allows you to do. This way you have a wider choice of tunes to choose from, instead of the limited choice supplied with a phone. In the past, it's also been annoying when upgrading to another phone to find another set of different and useless ringtones.
When I get an iPod Touch soon, I hope to be able to do the same, but I guess I'll have to use some cracked software to be able to do this, as Apple being Apple would make you pay for the privilege. Having to pay for ringtones is just a rip-off as far as I'm concerned
Your missing the point. I think the point is that Apple's present contract does not allow them to allow downloads over mobile data. This is probably why the iPhone is limited to WiFi only. I cannot believe it's because of the speed when they are going to allow people to download applications and games in the App Store over EDGE.
Good point but unlimited data is unlimited data. I should (in theory) be allowed to download as I please regardless. I am not sure about the contract thing you mentioned. You might be right but I do not think the terms have been released.
I don't see this being mentioned as an Oh Wow feature. It's just a nice feature that Apple are trying to add.
I was mentioning in the vernacular of it being something new. It's not. It has been done before.
If you look at Nokia, SE, and providers music stores they are all vastly more expensive than iTunes. Clearly the music labels want to push Apple up to that sort of pricing for mobile downloads. Why they insist on more money for mobile downloads I have no idea. Probably because if it's too cheap they see it killing off their CD cashcow because it would be just so damn convenient.
To be honest, I have not checked lately. I know that Nokia is now offering (or will offer) a bundled product: "Comes with Music" type of deal. Not sure how this will impact Apple. I do not think all the details have been released.
P.S. What does Amazon have to do with iTunes OTA downloads? Seeing as Apple don't allow Apps to interface with iTunes on Mobile OS X there isn't going to be an Amazon OTA store. Not unless Apple decide to allow it. Also the Amazon MP3 store is only available in the US, not much use for the rest of the world.
I pay for US Amazon. I was under the impression that the OP was based in the US. If not, oh well.
Generally, both programs, and games, are smaller than the average song, so download times are shorter. Not too many phone/PDA programs equal the 4.5 MB that a typical song (128K) is.
While I can agree on the program side, I cannot on games. OK there might be some games which aren't overly graphics or sound intensive but I also suspect there will be a reasonable amount of games with large 3D textures and good quality music. After all the iPhone will be the first phone (Plus the iPod Touch) where the developers can write using OpenGL ES without cutting down their target market hugely.
Seeing as you've got at least a 4GB flash drive on all the devices (Minus OS) you've got the storage and the phone has 128MB of RAM. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see a few 5+MB games. It really should be capable of some impressive graphics way beyond what we've ever seen on a phone before.
They agreed to sell over the internet. That is the internet.
Actually, in terms of quality (for the same bit rate) and library size iTunes is still better than Amazon. Personally, 10c is not that much of saving.
In terms of bit rates most if not all of Amazon's songs are of a higher bit rate and I will take that $.10 saving. Add up 8 or 9 and I have a free song for the price of 1 iTunes song.
Call me redundant but I'm not sure why it matters how you download songs. You can use the internet "over the air." Why should the content owners have any say in which network you can use to access the store.
They agreed to sell over the internet. That is the internet.
Agreed
Why do some people always think that everything is so simple?
If Apple, or the other phone makers could sell songs over the network at 99©, or any reasonable price themselves, don't you think they would be doing it?
They don't do it because the cell companies have them tied up with contracts saying that only the cell companies can sell songs over their networks.
Apple didn't try before, because EDGE is really too slow. That's why they did it with WiFi. One, it's fast enough, and, two, it's off network, so the cell company can't do anything about it.
But now, with 3G, they want to sell songs thaere as well.
Despite what you say, no one is doing this right now. The cell companies control all song selling over their networks, and the cash goes through their hands, with a big chunk remaining in them.
Apple is trying to work around that as much as possible.
Data is data. If I want to sit and wait 10 mins for a song to download that is my biz, at least give me the chance to do it. SImplicity has nothing to do with it. It is all about choice.
To tell you the truth, I don't understand what all the fuss is about. Most sane people would simply wait until they were close to a WiFi connection to download a song versus paying more for it over a cellular network (if it came down to that).
Seriously, how many times are you out somewhere, with no connection to a WiFi network, and then say all of a sudden, "I MUST HAVE THAT SONG" or "I MUST HAVE THAT ALBUM"?
Let Apple and the music companies fight it out, I don't think that's it's anything that WE should be losing sleep over. If Apple in the end looses the fight and has to charge more for cellular downloads, so be it -- I won't be stupid enough to pay the higher price anyway.
In fact, I'll just stick to buying used CDs from Half.com like I always have in the past. Pay a few dollars for the CD, then rip them to MP3s myself. It's much cheaper than going through iTunes and opens me up to a vast library or music.
My iPod touch hasn't complained once about this arrangement
RIGHT!!!!!
The availability of comparable bitrates is limited to something like 20% of iTunes' inventory. That tidbit of information isn't very useful for the rest. I realize it's probably not Apple's fault, but the reality remains.
Exactly. I know it is not all Apple's fault, but the fact remains, higher bit rates for less money equal a bargain.
You aren't really naive enough to think that the 89© Amazon charges is something the labels want to do, do you?
So what. If I can get cheaper songs then I do.
You do understand that the only reason why they are doing that is to break itunes?
The point being that they could then RAISE prices to the levels they are crying for.
And, of course, that you are helping them to do that.
Is this another Steve Jobs is looking out for the little guy argument? Steve Jobs is only loyal to the current Mrs. Jobs, his kids, and the shareholders. Steve Jobs is not our friends.
By buying from Amazon, people will make it impossible for Apple to get the deal they want.
But that thinking is too long term, right?
Welcome to the biz world. Some win, some lose.
So what. If I can get cheaper songs then I do.
Is this another Steve Jobs is looking out for the little guy argument? Steve Jobs is only loyal to the current Mrs. Jobs, his kids, and the shareholders. Steve Jobs is not our friends.
Welcome to the biz world. Some win, some lose.
I've got to agree here. Who cares where the songs come from? If they are cheaper and of higher bitrate, then so be it. I don't give a crap about how it affects Apple (Apple is doing just fine if you must know), I'm looking out for my wallet.
As long as it legal and not that much of a hassle to download, it shouldn't really be an issue.
What the hell difference does it make to the music companies whether someone is downloading something over a fixed line or 3G connection? It makes no difference to them at all. It will make a difference to Telco's, but that is about it.
That pretty much sums it up and frankly is what I felt when first reading this thread.
Maybe it's just the fact that they are blood sucking scum.
YEP!
I hope everyone makes more of an effort to pirate music and that they slowly die.
Well this part I can and will disagree with. The companies certainly need to die there is no doubt at all about that, but that outcome can be assured without dirtying ones self with questionable activities. The answer is to not do business with the record companies and the artists signed with them, that are after this. I do mean to "do business" as like it or not most musicians are in it for the money. Keep them from benefiting form a relationship with the big labels and sooner or later they will get the hint. It is not just the purchase of tracks managed by the record companies either, one has to make sure the artist never benefit from any of their financial efforts while signed with these labels. That means no money spent on concerts, tee shirts or anything else offered up.
Dave
While I can agree on the program side, I cannot on games. OK there might be some games which aren't overly graphics or sound intensive but I also suspect there will be a reasonable amount of games with large 3D textures and good quality music. After all the iPhone will be the first phone (Plus the iPod Touch) where the developers can write using OpenGL ES without cutting down their target market hugely.
Seeing as you've got at least a 4GB flash drive on all the devices (Minus OS) you've got the storage and the phone has 128MB of RAM. Therefore I wouldn't be surprised to see a few 5+MB games. It really should be capable of some impressive graphics way beyond what we've ever seen on a phone before.
That's why I said "most". I'm sure there will be a few. but most will likely be well under 1 MB.
Don't forget that textures and scenery, need be only 480 x 320 at this point. even if they scroll they will be small. figure out how many bits are needed. It's very few.
Data is data. If I want to sit and wait 10 mins for a song to download that is my biz, at least give me the chance to do it. SImplicity has nothing to do with it. It is all about choice.
Your business is your business to be sure. But network operators see it differently. That's their business, and they have to make a profit, and keep the airwaves open. Sometimes, other than for greed, and I'm not denying that's a part, charging fees prevents people from staying on all the time downloading. If that happens, everyone's rates will go up, or they will start throttling, that is what Cox and Comcast do now with P2P.
So what. If I can get cheaper songs then I do.
That's fine, but don't complain if they are looking out for themselves too.
Is this another Steve Jobs is looking out for the little guy argument? Steve Jobs is only loyal to the current Mrs. Jobs, his kids, and the shareholders. Steve Jobs is not our friends.
We've gone through this argument too many times already here.
Companies aren't supposed to look out for the little guy. They are supposed to look out for themselves, their employees, and their investors.
Smart management knows that often the best thing for those three groups is to give the little guy what is the best product, at the best price for what it is.
Apple has done that with iTunes. you can be shortsighted about it, or you can see through the ruse the labels are playing with Amazon.
Welcome to the biz world. Some win, some lose.
I'm aware of that son. It's who wins and loses that matter. If the wrong ones win, then WE lose. You want the labels to win this. Good for you.