New iPods and New Music Service?

[MacRumors]

Despite several false starts, iPods continue to be expected shortly with minor updates. Features such as color screens and FW800 are not expected according to reliable rumors.

The iPod updates may, however, bring us a new unexpected service from Apple.

Sources report that Apple will be introducing an MP3 music-downloading service to users. The service partner to provide the music has not yet been identified, but songs are expected to cost $0.99 per song.

Dedicated readers may recall a similar rumor which made our 2002 Rumor Reject list (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/01/20030101214437.shtml) with this anonymous Slashdot (http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=47628&cid=4866593) post.

In the future, you'll (assuming we can cut a deal with Apple Records on that nasty trademark matter) be able to plug you iPod into your Mac, browse a library of songs via iTunes, and download them directly to your iPod over broadband or AirPort. Micro-payment (well, semi-micro; on the order of a dollar per song) will be handled through the .Mac "one click" system, which Apple licensed from Amazon and already uses in iPhoto for buying photographic prints on line.


While, Anonymous Slashdot posts are certainly not a source of reliable information, it appears there may be some truth to this particular post.

[iJon]

i dont think apple would do that. i think they know too many people out there download music. all these pay for music sites flop. i dont think even apple could get it going. i know i wouldnt sign up.

iJon

[vniow]

If it had a wide selection unlike all of those other pay for music download services and you could use the MP3 like any other MP3 than I'd go for it.

[luiss]

If you can download a 100% pure, no strings attached, MP3 file for $0.99, I would be all over that.

[vniow]

Originally posted by iJon
all these pay for music sites flop.

They flop because there's a very limited selection of music to choose from, the music files are either streaming so you can't save them or they're copy protected WMA files (or something else propietary).
If there was a site for pay which I could download music from with an extremely wide selection and I could do with the MP3 file with what I can do with a CD than I'd gladly pay 0.99 a song.

The pay-to-download can work, it just has to be done right.

Edit: And I hope they can have different selections of bitrates, even though I have dial-up I'd gladly wait longet for a higher quality file than some horrible souding 128kbs MP3.

<sigh> I miss the days of Audiogalaxy.

[MrBillGates]

I think $0.99 is a good value... I think the service would be successfull. Sometimes downloading songs can be a pain and you never really know what quality you're gonna get.

[Niknar]

I think this is a very good idea.

Think of all the .Mac members that would sigh up for this.

If this dose come true I will be very happy :-)

[deepkid]

I never conceived using and enjoying mp3s on such a large scale before having my iPod.
It's amazing how things change so rapidly in these times.

I've never taken .Mac seriously, but depending on the repetoire that would be offered with this rumored online service, it just might persuade me to give it a try.

[esome]

One of my favorite songs happens to be over an hour long so $0.99 would be a steal. :D

[Maclicious]

I'd love to have the option of paying .99 for a mpg, no strings attached. YES! But, don't make me pay a monthly subscription fee--I'm already paying that with my .Mac subscription, right?

If this were a .Mac service, who would sign up for .Mac now who doesn't already have it?

[swahilibill]

when will all of this stuff appear, i want a new iPod and i dont want to WAIT!!!!...lol(sory bout that) I just want to know when these new iPod will be out!!!???

[iGod]

Well...if this service is designed for the iPod, clearly we're not talking streaming audio here. But how could they possibly control the proliferation of these songs?

Originally posted by vniow
They flop because there's a very limited selection of music to choose from, the music files are either streaming so you can't save them or they're copy protected WMA files (or something else propietary).
If there was a site for pay which I could download music from with an extremely wide selection and I could do with the MP3 file with what I can do with a CD than I'd gladly pay 0.99 a song.

The pay-to-download can work, it just has to be done right.

Edit: And I hope they can have different selections of bitrates, even though I have dial-up I'd gladly wait longet for a higher quality file than some horrible souding 128kbs MP3.

<sigh> I miss the days of Audiogalaxy.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Maclicious

If this were a .Mac service, who would sign up for .Mac now who doesn't already have it?

I would in an instant.

As soon as I got broadband.http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=252654

[job]

Originally posted by iGod
But how could they possibly control the proliferation of these songs?

They couldn't if these were actual, no frills, no strings attached .mp3 files.

Once one person buys it, it's only a matter of time before it shows up on the P2P networks.

[edit: This also makes me wonder how they will convince people to move away from the free, albeit illegal P2P networks to a pay-per-download service. If the same songs are already available for free download, why would anyone sign up for this service? For that matter, why wouldn't people just go out and buy the CD? For the price one would have to pay to download the entire album, you could purchase it at a retailer.]

Unless there was some form of digital encryption supported by the next update of iTunes, the proliferation of the music in question would be impossible to stop.

[bennetsaysargh]

i would love something like that all the way, especially since i miss audiogalaxy too and limewire sucks soooo bad. but i also want new iPods ASAP, i've been waiting a long time to get one.

[FrankMtl65]

Seeing that Roxio is about to revive Napster:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030224/media_roxio_napster_1.html


Frank
(newcomer to this forum :)

[steeleclipse]

As long as there still half decent places to download half decent quality music, I don't think that there will be many partakers. Can you tell me you honestly feel bad about multi-millionaire artists' royalties?

I don't know where it is, but somewhere floating around on the internet, Courtney Love wrote an article condoning MP3 swapping for one simple reason: the great piracy debate is not over the "starving artist" but rather the fat-cat music exec.

They only care about piracy because they can't line their pockets and other fat-cat shareholder's pockets as much as they used to.

HALF the people that pirate now are newbies that jumped on the bandwagon because of the record execs making it so obvious that MP3 sharing is such an easy thing to get into.

And movies? Come on. What the heck are they so worried about? The quality is NOT NEAR the quality of DVD, which is only about 15-20 bucks. Besides, for the people that don't have TV out cards, most people don't wanna watch some crappy format in front of there 17" CRT for 2 hours anyways.

If they want to look at a REAL piracy issue, they need to focus more on software, because companies are just going to go down the tubes or quality is going to suck, because of lost revenue.

Fhew! Let me breath...

[steeleclipse]

oops i guess italics dont work :D

[vniow]

Originally posted by iGod
But how could they possibly control the proliferation of these songs?


The honor system?

Seiously, some of the main reasons why people P2P over pay-to-download (besides the obvious lack of payment) is because it has the music that they want and they're free to do with the MP3 what they wish, no copy protection, no nothing.

The reasons why I would use a pay service would be:
Wide selection of songs, out of all the P2Ps I've tried, Audiogalaxy had it best I think, I could find obscure local arists that haven't played in more than a few clubs, or some snippets from a radio show, plus it had community which was the most important factor over song selection.
I could use the MP3 like a CD I bought (i.e. no copy protection)
There was at least an option for high bitrate songs.
Reliable downloads.
No spyware.


If I had the bandwith and the ca$h, I'd go for something like that in a second.

[Gateguy]

I would pay to play

[weev]

The pay per song idea has life, especially if you get a high quality (224 Kbps) file so it sounds as near to CD quailty for the audiophile ear.

Pirate songs are way less than this and only good for previewing songs, IMHO.

Damn it, I have Linn hi fi (linn.co.uk) and only want the best sound. And it seems pretty straight up that mp3's will eventually - in time - replace CDs and ALL our music purchases will be through this type of method.

Go Apple, GO!

weev

[job]

Originally posted by vniow
I could use the MP3 like a CD I bought (i.e. no copy protection)
There was at least an option for high bitrate songs.

So why don't you just buy the CD yourself and rip them to what ever bitrate you want?

The cost you will spend for the download for an entire album is roughly equal to the price of a new CD.

[steeleclipse]

hey Vniow:

Please elighten me...

Are you the queen of unwanted email, or the queen of canned luncheon meat???

Your reply would be greatly appreciated.

[kfury]

I've seen a lot of comments on this thread about people being arbitrarily pass along purchased mp3s to others willy-nilly.

Duh folks, if you buy a real CD and pop it into your mac, it's going to encode them into mp3s that you could pass along just as easily.

Forget albums, and think mp3-centric for a second: If you use iTunes as your primary music repository and you want a specific new song or album, you have a few options:

* Leave your computer and go to the record store to buy it
* Buy it from amazon or other online vendor and wait for several days
* Use a p2p tool to pirate it and get it fastest
* Use a one-click service to get it legally and instantly.

No matter which route you go you have an mp3 that could be passed on to others, but right now the only way to get instant gratification is to break the law. That would change with one-click downloads of mp3s.

One-click is easier than pirating because you're sure of what you're getting. It also happens to be legal. And those who pay for mp3s are probably not those who will turn around and propogate them to the web at large. Morality begets morality.

The point is that piracy is work, going to the record store is work, and ordering from amazon and waiting is work. An instant download and micropayment system is not work, and if there's one thing that people like less than paying money, it's working.

This will succeed.

[vniow]

Originally posted by hitman
So why don't you just buy the CD yourself and rip them to what ever bitrate you want?

The cost you will spend for the download for an entire album is roughly equal to the price of a new CD.

If that's the case, then I'd just go and buy the CD.

But what about all the songs that aren't on CDs? Unreleased stuff, live tracks, some obscure album that got lost in the back of some record store?

There's an immense catalog of music that hasn't got transferred to CD yet so you either have to browse record stores for it which could be time-consuming and you may not find it at all, or you could try eBay, but beware dedicated bidders, or you could browse the web for some online store that sells them.

That's the kind of selection I'm talking about, not things you can buy on a CD

[vniow]

Originally posted by steeleclipse
hey Vniow:

Please elighten me...

Are you the queen of unwanted email, or the queen of canned luncheon meat???

Your reply would be greatly appreciated.

Queen of Macrumors spam.

Top female poster here.http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=257755

[seamuskrat]

Of course .99 a song is a steal if you only like 1 or 2 songs per album. I cannot tell you how many times I but a CD for 12 to 21 bucks only to have 1 or 2 good songs I care about. .99 or even up to 5 bucks fro 5 songs is a steal.

My guess is that Apple will be proactive in some way about copyright issues. Rather than be forced to comply later by Congress, they will adobt a middle of the road system. Maybe one that only allows a MP3 to be shared on internal networks or some such. Probably not technically feasible.

What would be nice is if Apple does this, its NOT just for Macs. It would get ALOT of PC folks using Apple sites and bombarded with Apple tech and maybe over time they would see the light
;-).
But for fast reliable and legal DL, .99 is not bad. P2P is often slow, unreliable, and poor quality. Plus many servers require 'memberships' or its a 'this for that' exchange. For those who only need a few songs, this kind of situation is perfect.

Now if only the iPods would come out soon.I have got $400 burning a hole in my account and I need a iPod to spend it on!

[medea]

Sorry but $.99 for an .mp3 does not sound like a good deal, a 15 song cd costs roughly $15 so you would be paying the same for mp3's, only there is a quality loss in mp3's and the fact that you not only have to download them but also burn them to a disc which also costs money (albeit cd-r's are cheap now.)
I doubt this will become a reality.

[vniow]

Has anyone thought that the service (if it comes to light) will be AAC oriented?

Higher bitrate songs which take up less space so bandwith costs will be lower.

Thoughts?

[bikertwin]

If they gave (broadband) users the option of downloading an AIFF or WAV file instead of an MP3 file, I'd jump on this in a second.

An MP3 file is fine for the tinny speakers on my iBook, but I want uncompressed, full resolution audio for my stereo system.

I didn't spend $$$ on my Harman/Kardon and JBL components for nothin'! :p

[stefman]

I would pay $0.99 to download a good quality song.

Actually, I think this is what the record industry needs. They keep complaining about piracy. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind paying a buck instead of searching all over the net for a song of unknown quality.

[Odox]

Originally posted by weev
The pay per song idea has life, especially if you get a high quality (224 Kbps) file so it sounds as near to CD quailty for the audiophile ear.


High quality is important if your paying for the music. If this was geared towards the ipod, the songs wouldn't have to be half that quality to hear the difference.
In fact anything over 190kbps is hard to hear the difference unless you've got a tuning fork for an ear :p

Anyway - I think the songs would probably have to be even cheaper than this to get anyone buying them. Possibly one hit wonders, but you can pick up an album with 16 songs on it for £8.99 at cdwow. If they did deals on whole albums that would work well.

[SoonToGetAMac]

eMusic does have a no-string-attached service right now. $15 per month with unlimited downloads...sure its only 128kbps MP3s, but I can't really tell the difference, and this service has saved me a lot of $$ :)

[stefman]

Originally posted by medea
Sorry but $.99 for an .mp3 does not sound like a good deal, a 15 song cd costs roughly $15 so you would be paying the same for mp3's, only there is a quality loss in mp3's and the fact that you not only have to download them but also burn them to a disc which also costs money (albeit cd-r's are cheap now.)
I doubt this will become a reality.

That's true if you want the whole album, but if you want 1 or 2 songs off an album, it's cheaper to download the $0.99/song option.

[drastik]

Where are you people buying 15$ CDs? I really want to know. I buy around ten CDs a month, and most of them are at least $18. Of course, I don't buy a lot of the pop stuff, so the sales don't usually hit my shelf. On the other hand, I occasionally find a gem for ten bucks.

.99 is a good price. I would go for it.

[rspress]

I think the .99 cent per mp3 file is a good price, people are already paying that for a ringtone for the cellphone.

I really hope Apple releases a 5gig iPod for under 200 bucks. An iPod for 199.95 would sell like hotcakes and also fuel their online music service.

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by steeleclipse
As long as there still half decent places to download half decent quality music, I don't think that there will be many partakers. Can you tell me you honestly feel bad about multi-millionaire artists' royalties?

Many of the bands I like are unknown's or struggling bands that need CDs sales so their independent label's won't dump them. And the bands that I do like that have made it I still buy their albums 'cause I want to support them. If Ms. Love wants her songs to be traded that's great. If she's the copyright holder she can do what she wants w/them. But what about the artists that don't want their songs to be traded? It's their music and, by law, they dicate how and when their songs can be distributed and used. IMO it's about respect and general principle.

But on topic... If Apple does do some sort of music service like this there's got to be a twist to it 'cause 1. it's Apple and 2. services like these usually fail so probably need to do something different to make it work. I wouldn't do it for 99 cents a song though. I'll d/l songs from a P2P for free and if I like them I'll buy the album, if not they get trashed.


Lethal

[seamuskrat]

I know I am nearly deaf, so a 128 vs 192 MP3 sounds the same, but how much difference, even on a good stero is there between AAC, AIFF/WAV and high quality MP3? Other than the theoretical difference, is it even perceptible?

Also, I was told by some friends who have a recording contract that todays CDs are often recorded in a lower quality format even thoug they are written in WAV. Meaning they save costs in studio and do all the production stuff at a level where a 192 MP3 would not impact quality. But I am no expert on this so i may have misunderstood.

But on my iPod, or typical car stero or even a home system for a non-audiophile would I really notice a difference/

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by drastik
Where are you people buying 15$ CDs? I really want to know. I buy around ten CDs a month, and most of them are at least $18. Of course, I don't buy a lot of the pop stuff, so the sales don't usually hit my shelf. On the other hand, I occasionally find a gem for ten bucks.

.99 is a good price. I would go for it.


Why do you shop that CDs are usually $18 a pop? Where ever it is stop going there 'cause I bet you can find them cheaper someplace else. ;) Imports are the only things I usually spent more than $15 or $16 for.


Lethal

[NHMac]

I can see the .99 thing working as other have said if the selection is there... it's a different market the the full length CD Market so the agruments about it costing 15$ to download a cd, I don't see as relevent.

How many folks would have paid .99 to get Nora Jones on Sunday Night? I would have. Had to get if from limewire instead... but I would have paid for it if there was a legal way to get that one song.

With Steves Hollywood connections, pehaps Apple has enough cred to pull somthing like this off.

[Hawthorne]

Originally posted by deepkid
I never conceived using and enjoying mp3s on such a large scale before having my iPod.
It's amazing how things change so rapidly in these times.

I've never taken .Mac seriously, but depending on the repetoire that would be offered with this rumored online service, it just might persuade me to give it a try.

Ditto. On both accounts. As well, there was some discussion on a previous thread about the value of an iPod, all I have to add to it is that it's the biggest change to my music listening habits since my first CD player

[Odox]

Originally posted by seamuskrat
I know I am nearly deaf, so a 128 vs 192 MP3 sounds the same, but how much difference, even on a good stero is there between AAC, AIFF/WAV and high quality MP3? Other than the theoretical difference, is it even perceptible?

But on my iPod, or typical car stero or even a home system for a non-audiophile would I really notice a difference/

It's really personal preference, but I doubt you would hear any noticable difference.

Back to topic - I reckon this service actually would be 'perfect' for one hit wonders.

[Hawthorne]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe

But on topic... If Apple does do some sort of music service like this there's got to be a twist to it 'cause 1. it's Apple and 2. services like these usually fail so probably need to do something different to make it work. I wouldn't do it for 99 cents a song though. I'll d/l songs from a P2P for free and if I like them I'll buy the album, if not they get trashed.


Lethal

The twist? I'd expect to see straight-to-iTunes functionality implemented, tying the downloaded mp-3 to one iPod (and one computer?), unless other means are used.

[melchior]

i am surprised no one has mentioned an audible.com style setup. would this not provide the suitable (not particularly strong, but enough to keep the RIAA away) copy-control structure?

[rugby]

Macnn posted an article a week ago or so about DRM capabilities in Mpeg-4 and AAC audio. Apple could conceivably use these features to lock a song onto a computer if it's an .mp4 file.

[Talon1138]

People are forgetting that the majority of P2P music swappers are teens and college students with fat pipes who don't have any money and DON'T CARE that they are pirating. Personally I would always buy CDs if they were only $5 a pop?I like to have the physical CD, case, and especially the liner notes.

$.99 is too much for kids to pay...and remember, younger kids don't have credit cards so one-click is bull.

[AllenPSU]

$.99 is a price I would pay... especially if it is one those only good songs on a CD. If they had a deal for bulk discount, I am sure they would get more sales... something like 15 songs for $10.

[FailedTuring's]

Couldn't Apple just utilize some sort of software/firmware compatibility between the music files and iPods? Make it so they're only playable via iPods, possibly? I don't know...

[ear2ear]

Originally posted by seamuskrat
Also, I was told by some friends who have a recording contract that todays CDs are often recorded in a lower quality format even thoug they are written in WAV. Meaning they save costs in studio and do all the production stuff at a level where a 192 MP3 would not impact quality. But I am no expert on this so i may have misunderstood.

Actually it's the opposite for digital recordings nowadays. While CD quality is 16-bit/44.1khz, many recordings are done at 24-bit and 48, 96 or 192khz (this is NOT TO BE CONFUSED with the rate MP3's are available at. A 24-bit/192khz audio file would be approx 60x bigger than it's 192kbps MP3. And it would sound MUCH better (to me that is, whether your ear cares or not is another story).

I do like this idea in theory but I don't want to pay for something that is not tangible. Right now, I spend approx. $200 per month on music on CDs and vinyl. Those CDs are immediately ripped into iTunes and then they go to the shelf with the rest of my "collection". I need to have a physical package for a variety of reasons:

1) Liner notes are req'd reading for me. I want to know who produced the song, where it was recorded and by whom.

2) The artwork is important as well. I have a problem with artists who just make songs since their is no sign of an actual vision. The artwork is the link between the theme & the music. This is what seperates a compilation from an album.

3) Since my collection also sits in my recording studio, it also gives my clients an impression of me and my tastes. Nothing breaks the ice better than realizing you both like the same obscure artist.

So I'd love this for the obscure remixes, B-sides, live recordings and freestyles, but I much prefer to drop my change at the local Mom & Pop store and get something I know I will always have and not have to worry about hard drive failures killing my collection (just fires, theft & floods).

peace

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by seamuskrat
My guess is that Apple will be proactive in some way about copyright issues. Rather than be forced to comply later by Congress, they will adopt a middle of the road system. Maybe one that only allows a MP3 to be shared on internal networks or some such. Probably not technically feasible.


I agree that they'll use a middle of the road approach.

How about a EULA for each download? It's a more legally binding form of the honor system.

Regardless of whatever system they use, what I want to know is whether major labels will cooperate with a company that uses a method of distribution with few strings attached. An Audible-like method of protection was mentioned. Audible will let you use files from your account on three or less computers. If Apple were to use something like that, I think the RIAA bastards would take issue.



P.S. There must be a MUCH larger library of songs to choose from than is currently available from existing download companies.

[pic9809]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the future, you'll (assuming we can cut a deal with Apple Records on that nasty trademark matter) be able to plug you iPod into your Mac, browse a library of songs via iTunes, and download them directly to your iPod over broadband or AirPort. Micro-payment (well, semi-micro; on the order of a dollar per song) will be handled through the .Mac "one click" system, which Apple licensed from Amazon and already uses in iPhoto for buying photographic prints on line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

has anyone else noticed that the rumor says nothing about this apple service allowing you to download mp3s to your computer?

rather, you use i tunes to _browse_ the online library, and you download _directly_ to your ipod. you pay $0.99 to have a song on your ipod, and nowhere else (assuming you don't use software to allow you to port mp3s from your ipod to your mac)

in my mind, this distinction would be the only way for apple to get around the copyright issues from all the major record companies and get a comprehensive library of tunes. without a _massive_ music library, this service will most likely flop

how would ppl feel if indeed this service only allowed for direct download to your ipod and in fact didn't give you "full" mp3 access? would ppl still be willing to pay $0.99 / song?

but enuf with this, when are we getting new ipods? i've been holding my breath since december for a thinner, less expensive 20gb

[pudrik]

You hear a song on the radio, or on MTV. You want it.

You can go out and buy a CD for $15+ and maybe like some of the other songs. You can go on to Gnutella or Xolox and search for it, and hope that you can find it and that it's good quality. Sure, if it's top 40s, it'll be there in spades, but what if its something new or eclectic? Or you can use Sherlock or however its implemented and for a measily $1 get the song you want right now with good quality.

Most people want to pay for music they like, to support the artists they like, but they dont' like paying for stuff they don't want, or the idea that most of the money is going to the rec company. Most people want it now, with good quality, and little hassle.

As long as it is pay-per-song, people would use the system even if there isn't that great a selection. However, inorder to get the volume necessary to be profitable, Apple would need to make sure they have a large catalog, and can get new songs fairly quickly.

[scem0]

I can understand someone paying for songs, but I just wouldn't
do it. I think it would be a good idea of apple's, unless they limited
the songs on the iPod to only the songs you have bought from
apple or something else Microsoftish like that.

It would be even cooler to be able to stream music wirelessly
from apple's servers onto your wireless internet iPod, but I'm
just dreamin'.... ;)

[Kwyjibo]

Originally posted by drastik
Where are you people buying 15$ CDs? I really want to know. I buy around ten CDs a month, and most of them are at least $18. Of course, I don't buy a lot of the pop stuff, so the sales don't usually hit my shelf. On the other hand, I occasionally find a gem for ten bucks.

.99 is a good price. I would go for it.


I don't know what to tell you, I listen to mostly alternative and Pop-Punk and my cds at BestBuy (they usually carry them cheapest) range from $6.99-$13.99 usually. Some are special promo prices like the first week a cd of a smaller band debuts a cd otherwise they are usually in that range. Id rather buy a cd because i typically like the songs that aren't online or are obscure online just my preference tho. I honestly cant remember buying a Cd for more than 13.99 tho. If i do find a cd like that I usually check sites like half.com or whatever for new versions.

[DavisBAnimal]

I remember a few years back hearing something about Chuck D from Public Enemy, fed up with Record Companies and the like, releasing an entire album's worth of Mp3s directly from his website (for a small fee). At the time I heard this, I swore it was the wave of the future.

If Apple was able to put something together where Bands/Artists could skip the ugly, greedy, Record Company middle man and drop there albums straight into this service, it would be a great great thing, and I would be all over the $.99 fee.

Maybe this just suits my taste for independantly produced music (I don't really see a Britney Spears or Creed type releasing their albums this way), but this would be truly revolutionary. Add to it the ability to stream songs as a preview (ala Amazon, etc.) and one of those "if you like this artist than you'll like this artist too" (also ala Amazon, etc.) and Apple could have a very powerful, very influential thing here.

In light of other discussions of the day, if this were to be a .Mac service, and if Apple indded wanted it to catch on, wouldn't it be a good idea to open up .Mac to Windows users as well?

I like this - Artists need a way to get their music to the public without the help of greedy record companies, and they need to get paid for it. I always applauded pro P2P musicians - from Limp Bizkit, to Chuck D, to even Courtney Love (although this is the only aspect of Courtney Love I've applauded since "Live Through This") but always felt as if they deserved some sort of monetary compesation for the music they make. I never had any desire to pay any corporate fat-cats.

Davis

[Choppaface]

I hope itunes doesn't turn into some convoluted app to facilitate this...

[mangoman]

Originally posted by esome
One of my favorite songs happens to be over an hour long so $0.99 would be a steal. :D

I'll bite. What song is it?

[damax452]

Uhh,

Am I the only person reading this forum that uses IRC?
There are literally hundreds of thousands of mp3s from obscure stuff to the newest albums at your fingertips on IRC. This is the reason why pay-per-song sites fail. The selection on a site like this could NEVER match whats on IRC. Get with the times guys. But don't steal music. Only download songs you have a legal copy of. :D

[DeusOmnis]

The ppl downloading the music online are not willing to pay very much, especially since they are mostly teenagers and college students who cantn afford it anyway, as noted above.

The music companies, however, can sabatoge the music online by posting a whole bunch of corrupted files under the same name, or with the same size. They dont even have to be garble, they can just be like "PLEASE DONT STEAL MUSIC, PLEASE DONT STEAL MUSIC, ETC", that would avoid limewire's anti-corruption software
This would be particularly effective now since many programs download from multiple users. ONe corrupted file could destroy many. (hard to explain).

Next, the quality of music on the web is not so great. I know some of you cant tell the difference between 128 and 192 bit, but I can. The speakers on my computer are only 62 bucks (cambridge soundworks) and i can still tell the difference no problem.

The ease of use would be amazing if apple could integrate the into itunes 4. I think many people would rather know for sure they could get it online as a high quality version than mess around. I am a really cheap guy and I know I would.

Also note, apple has a huge amount of bandwidth to play with. If you ever download software from them, you will notice that you can easily get 800 kb/sec.

There are two issues though. I doubt people would be willing to pay a dollar a song. I personally would be more willing for 50 cents, or mb 75 cents a song. I might be willing to pay a dollar a song for the really really good onees, but what about the other ones that are on the cd that arnt as popular? They're good to listen to as well, but i'm not going to be killing myself for them.

Also, Apple would have to get alot of artists in on this. I know some artists are willing to go on the net, some even post mp3's on thier website. But alot of them havnt even used a computer. Many of the ppl that are on the net are big computer geeks. The artists didnt play around on a computer, they played on thier guitars. They might not fully understand what is going on with the file sharing.

Next, if apple wants this to work, the songs have to be unprotected in all ways. Many artists may not go for that, but it's the only way it will work. As soon as you start adding protection, things get much more complicated, and customers start getting pissed off. The artists need to understand that they either can get some money for thier stuff through this system, or get no money from thier stuff because of limewire and kazaa.

Am i forgetting anything? what do you guys things?

[Shrek]

For those of you who complain about having to pay for music, think again. Do you want Apple to get sued?! :eek:

[job]

Originally posted by pic9809
how would ppl feel if indeed this service only allowed for direct download to your ipod and in fact didn't give you "full" mp3 access? would ppl still be willing to pay $0.99 / song?

Very good point.

So including .99 cent "downloads" you'll also have to slap on a $300 to $500 dollar .mp3 player.

Ha! So much for cost effeciency.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by pic9809
[B]how would ppl feel if indeed this service only allowed for direct download to your ipod and in fact didn't give you "full" mp3 access? would ppl still be willing to pay $0.99 / song?
[B]

No way. I use iTunes as much or more as my iPod. I mean, I would be able to play from my iPod through my computer, but that would be needlessly cumbersome. How, for example, would I ever be able to organize the downloads into playlists?

[Noc]

Originally posted by DeusOmnis
Also, Apple would have to get alot of artists in on this. I know some artists are willing to go on the net, some even post mp3's on thier website. But alot of them havnt even used a computer. Many of the ppl that are on the net are big computer geeks. The artists didnt play around on a computer, they played on thier guitars. They might not fully understand what is going on with the file sharing.

Am i forgetting anything? what do you guys things?

I agree with most what you said, especially the fact that having mp3s available on a high-bandwidth server is a huge plus, compared to having to wait an hour to download a song over kazaa (or whatever).

I would just like to add that, in many cases, the artists themselves likely have little say in how their music gets distributed. It is the record company that is in charge of distribution. So, the fact that an artist may not be really computer savy is not that important. What is important is that the upper-execs in the record companies see that this is a good move for them.

[Centris 650]

Originally posted by pic9809
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the future, you'll (assuming we can cut a deal with Apple Records on that nasty trademark matter) be able to plug you iPod into your Mac, browse a library of songs via iTunes, and download them directly to your iPod over broadband or AirPort. Micro-payment (well, semi-micro; on the order of a dollar per song) will be handled through the .Mac "one click" system, which Apple licensed from Amazon and already uses in iPhoto for buying photographic prints on line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

has anyone else noticed that the rumor says nothing about this apple service allowing you to download mp3s to your computer?

rather, you use i tunes to _browse_ the online library, and you download _directly_ to your ipod. you pay $0.99 to have a song on your ipod, and nowhere else (assuming you don't use software to allow you to port mp3s from your ipod to your mac)

in my mind, this distinction would be the only way for apple to get around the copyright issues from all the major record companies and get a comprehensive library of tunes. without a _massive_ music library, this service will most likely flop

how would ppl feel if indeed this service only allowed for direct download to your ipod and in fact didn't give you "full" mp3 access? would ppl still be willing to pay $0.99 / song?

but enuf with this, when are we getting new ipods? i've been holding my breath since december for a thinner, less expensive 20gb

You make a good point. I don't have an iPod but would be interested in this pay-to-play idea.

I would pay 99¢ for a song...in a heart beat. I don't steal songs and would love to be able to download a song. (As long as the selection is good. I'm not a mainstream person and my tastes are not top 40.) I would even get a .Mac account to get this service...HOWEVER, if I have to have an iPod to do it I can't justify it unless the 'pods drop in price a good bit.

[Mr. MacPhisto]

Originally posted by weev
The pay per song idea has life, especially if you get a high quality (224 Kbps) file so it sounds as near to CD quailty for the audiophile ear.

Pirate songs are way less than this and only good for previewing songs, IMHO.

Damn it, I have Linn hi fi (linn.co.uk) and only want the best sound. And it seems pretty straight up that mp3's will eventually - in time - replace CDs and ALL our music purchases will be through this type of method.

Go Apple, GO!

weev
Not for awhile. Especially since there's no guarantee that CD quality audio will be good enough after a while. SACD or DVD Audio (hopefully SACD, which I own several of) will eventually gain the market - although it may take awhile.

On top of that, downloading ruins the concept of the album as an artistic statement. While many artists do only throw together a bunch of songs, some of the more serious and often better artists put together an album - songs that work together cohesively. Downloads can kill this concept.

And even at a high bitrate, compression will make it so that true matching quality will never happen. I'd rather have an uncompressed CD at this point in time. Maybe it's just because I like to listen to whole albums and not just to songs. Most people nowadays don't have the attention span to do it. Such a shame.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
On top of that, downloading ruins the concept of the album as an artistic statement. While many artists do only throw together a bunch of songs, some of the more serious and often better artists put together an album - songs that work together cohesively. Downloads can kill this concept.


The album concept has only existed since the invention of the phonograph. Songs, on the other hand, have been around since almost the beginning of life itself. Any medium for art is subject to be altered by technology. While the loss of the album as an art form may be a sad thing, I think it's just something we'll have to get used to. (Frankly, I think the whole concept of an industry for recorded music has been outdated by the digital revolution, but since there is too much money tied up in it the execs would rather hide behind arcane copyright laws than face facts and close shop.)

[esome]

quote:
Originally posted by esome
One of my favorite songs happens to be over an hour long so $0.99 would be a steal.

Originally posted by mangoman
I'll bite. What song is it?

'Thursday Afternoon' by Brian Eno.

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by drastik
Where are you people buying 15$ CDs? I really want to know. I buy around ten CDs a month, and most of them are at least $18. Of course, I don't buy a lot of the pop stuff, so the sales don't usually hit my shelf. On the other hand, I occasionally find a gem for ten bucks.

.99 is a good price. I would go for it.

I'm guessing you buy yours at a local store; that's a ripoff. Look online for deals, most of my cds cost roughly $12

[Nermal]

Something I've noticed about the existing pay sites is that most of them only support customers in the USA. For this scheme to work, international support is a must. However, the problem with international support is that once international users can come in, you really need to start including music from international bands. I've found it very difficult to find P2P downloads of local bands, but often can't be bothered going down to buy the CD. Therefore I usually don't have access to the songs at all (actually I discovered a local P2P service a few days ago and have found a lot of local music on there but that's beside the point :)).

[jccbin]

From the NY Times:

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 26 2003 ? Six of the largest music retailers plan to announce on Monday that they are joining forces to sell music that can be downloaded from the Web.

The retailing group, called Echo, consists of Best Buy, the nation's No. 1 electronics retailer; Tower Records; the Virgin Entertainment Group; Wherehouse Entertainment; Hastings Entertainment; and Trans World Entertainment, which operates the FYE store chain. The six retail companies will each own an equity stake in Echo that together will make them majority owners.

The new effort is motivated in part by the two-year decline in compact disc sales that has forced recording companies to cut costs and lay off employees and has damaged music retailers, too. Wherehouse Entertainment, for one, announced last week that it was filing for bankruptcy protection from its creditors, in part because of lackluster CD sales. And earlier this month, Best Buy announced that it would close 107 stores.

Like the recording companies, music retailers are searching for new sources of revenue. Vinyl albums and cassette tapes have nearly disappeared in recent years, leaving retailers with the CD as their main option for selling music. But a proliferation of free music-swapping services, among other factors, has led to a decline in CD sales. According to Nielsen SoundScan, which tracks album sales, 681 million were sold in 2002, down from 785 million in 2000.

"Obviously, there has been a lot of talk in the last three years and there have been a lot of failures," said Dan Hart, the chief executive of Echo, referring to earlier attempts by legitimate Web sites to sell music online. "But we see this as an inflection point. Retailers are saying, `This is the time to do it.' "

Mr. Hart said that Echo hoped to get licenses from the recording companies to distribute their music through the retail chains' own Web sites. In November, the Universal Music Group, which is owned by Vivendi Universal, began to distribute 43,000 of its songs through major retail and music Web sites, like Best Buy and Circuit City, for 99 cents a song or $9.99 an album. That total has since grown to 60,000.

Liquid Audio, a company that has developed technology meant to allow the secure sale of music online, has rights to 350,000 songs for downloading, but also has deep financial problems. The company agreed last week to sell some of its assets to the music distributor Anderson Merchandisers for $3.2 million as part of its liquidation.

Anderson, which is the music distributor for Wal-Mart Stores, also wants to be a distributor of downloadable music in retail outlets. That could eventually put Anderson in competition with Echo, but Mr. Hart said Echo was not opposed to working with Anderson.

In fact, Mr. Hart said he expected the pressures facing all parts of the music businesses ? including distributors, retailers and recording companies ? to motivate them all to work together to find a viable alternative to piracy. "People are saying, `Let's make it work on a real level,' " he said.

Such cooperation in online music ventures would have been unthinkable two years ago as retailers and music companies were at odds about how to best approach online music sales. More than a years ago, music labels embarked on their own online efforts, but so far they have received less than rave reviews.

Now, though, the music companies and the retailers need each other more than ever. Recording companies make the music, but it is retailers who know their customers. "Retail has always been about more than simply selling CD's," said Jerry Comstock, the chief executive of Wherehouse Entertainment. "We are in the customer relationship business."

Under Echo's plan, once the group received the necessary licenses, the partners would market their services together and separately. Efforts might include promotions like "Buy a compact disc, get a free download." The retailers could also enable customers to download music in stores using portable devices, like the Apple iPod. "No one has really marketed these services," Mr. Hart of Echo said.

But some analysts suggest that no matter how much creative and marketing muscle is behind such efforts, they will not catch on unless the music is priced right. The average cost of a compact disc, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, the lobbying group which represents recording companies, is $14.21. Many critics say that is expensive when compared with other media, like DVD's, which offer loads of extra features and programming.

"Any opportunity retailers have to find additional revenue in a time of falling sales is a positive," said Michael Nathanson, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. "Yet we continue to think that pricing has to come down to get pirates off of the free sites and onto legitimate ones."

[DeusOmnis]

That bit about how cd's are expensive compared to dvd's is unbelieveably correct. Think about how much it takes to make a cd, and how much it takes to put together a dvd. A cd is a few guys sitting together in a recording studio. As much as any person wants to dress it up, that's as much as it is. What they produce, although effective, is often not very creative when compared to the contents of a dvd movie. A quality movie takes more talent in all key areas such as writing, preforming, and recording, than any cd. It also covers two mediums, light and sound, as opposed to just one.

Question: When you watch a dvd, do you ask yourself, 'did that look pretty?', or do you ask yourself much more than that.

Personally, even though I listen to quite a bit of music, if I was to say that the content of a quality dvd movie was 20 dollars (LOTR, Matrix, etc), then I would have to say the content of a CD is a dollar. One dollar.

I dont see anyone paying 16 dollars for a hot dog, but apparently they would if everyone had since it first came out.

[timbloom]

This sounds like it would be a great service, and probably easily integrated into iTunes and .Mac, but seem like the kind of market that Apple would be extremely reluctant to get into. But does follow Apple's policy of "Helping honest people stay honest" like they did with the family liscencing for 10.2. Still seems like too iffy of a market for Apple to personally jump into.

But I would understand Apple letting somebody come in and offer it through .Mac. Possibly offer it free with the .mac membership (sill pay-per-song) or at a discounted price for .mac members.

This would take a lot of legal and financial responsability out of Apple's hands.

[edenwaith]

I was just discussing this issue with my brother a few days ago, and I thought that $1 a song would be pretty reasonable. Forget all of the packaging, or the middle-men stores. The biggest problem would be getting a large enough selection of songs available so people could 'legally' buy these songs and own them.

I know there have been a few times where I heard a song, but only wanted that one song, and didn't want to shell out $15-$20 for the entire album, with chances that the rest of the album might bite.

But similar to the problem offered with Columbia House, if only the big name songs are available, that might alienate potential customers if they already have the big-name material, or don't really care about it. That's the main reason why I stopped using Columbia House...nearly all of the albums I was buying were never offered by Columbia House...most of what I get are European and Japanese imports since they either don't come out in the U.S., or are released later. And even if they are released in the U.S., they generally don't have a large enough distributor to make CH's lists.

[James.Paul]

About a year ago I was contacted by a company doing research on behalf of Apple, many of the questions they ask regarded my itunes/music usage and whether i downloaded music from the internet. At the time i thought maybe they think i'm dodgy!!!!! So i wouldn't be suprised if a music service was the case. I'd be happy to use it as long as it was available to UK users.

Mind you, i wouldn't mind the updated iPod to appear soon. I imagine there's going to be an update of iTunes and we will have to wait until iTunes and the iPod are ready. They will both be released together.

[nanosound]

I just picked up a small brochure at Tower promoting this service. It makes sense and it looks like music retailers get it (if not the RIAA).

[GeeYouEye]

Here's an idea: what about having three levels of music sales? For $.99, you can download a song, for $1.99, you can download an AIFF song, and for $4.99 and $9.99 (MP3 and AIFF respectively), you can download an album, with PDF's of the liner notes and the artwork (available separately for $.25), properly formatted so you print it and stick it in a blank jewel case, and stick the disc art on a burned CD-R if you have a CD label printer. Even if you didn't most of the art actually on the CD itself is crap nowadays anyway, if there is any at all. The good art is in the jewel case. This could definitely work, especially if Apple has a huge selection, and works directly with the artists, and not the record companies.

As an aside. AudioGalaxy is back, but only free until March 7. The catch - you have to have a PC. No Mac support. :mad:

[chewbaccapits]

This is a great idea for APPLE. Sure there are other sites that you can pay a monthly charge for, but what those site don't have is a great product, like the iPod to have synergy with. There are supposed "iPod killers" coming soon and for Apple to stay on top, they need to pave the way for something truly unique. I think APPLE can pull it off. I don't know, but is this the only OS company (Apple) that would try to create such a service?

I would only think that this would up bring the iPod to a higher status.

[Bengt77]

Apple is actually working on a DRM system for MPEG4 and AAC.

Originally posted by iGod
But how could they possibly control the proliferation of these songs?

Didn't you read Apple is busy with implementing a DRM system into MPEG4? I'm sure you heard about the audio component of MPEG4, called AAC, and surely the DRM system will also be applied to it?!...

[Squire]

From a Forbes article regarding AOL's proposed music service:


" AOL Says: Rock On
The Internet giant offers a music service for a price. But, dude, can't we get that now, like, for free?"


Actually, though, I wouldn't mind paying a buck/tune if it was a versatile and quality cut. I wonder if Apple and AOl are related at all in this venture.

<edit>--------------------------------------
Here's more from the Forbes.com (Dan Ackman, Feb. 26) article :

"Users will not be permitted to create permanent copies of the songs unless they pay $18 a month. At that price, users will be allowed to "burn" ten songs onto a CD. That's more than a prepackaged CD costs in a store, but on MusicNet the advantage will presumably be the ability to create a CD composed of only the songs users want to hear most. AOL also said that it would soon offer all users the ability to buy songs for copying for less than $1 each."

[chewbaccapits]

Gosh...I hope not...look at the whole Warner Bros. merger......well, you might have something there...AOL has access to all its WB artist....

[martijnvandijk]

...the ease of downloading straight from iTunes. Just for that, I would easily spend $1 (or rather € 1 ;-)) for my favorite songs

[The Sheck]

Originally posted by Squire
Actually, though, I wouldn't mind paying a buck/tune if it was a versatile and quality cut.

I think a buck is too expensive for a 128kbps file (which is what it'll have to be to keep dl times down). 50 cents I could see. Otherwise, the rough cost comes out to $18-20 a disc (assuming that's the amount you can fit on a audio CD) or $130-150 for a mp3 disc.

The record companies need to offer a format that is totally exclusive to them that trumps mp3 quality. Take vinyl albums. Vinyl albums sound better than CDs due to the insane amount of compression that occurs before the CD is put together by the record companies. If there was a way to take the pre-compressed file and make it sound better with a unique file format that the record companies exclusively own, and charged 50 cents per track for it, who wouldn't want to dump P2P?

[redAPPLE]

id rather download .mp4s or .aac files.

if this is the "future". i would want to listen to the whole song, then decide, if i will pay for it.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by hitman
So why don't you just buy the CD yourself and rip them to what ever bitrate you want?

The cost you will spend for the download for an entire album is roughly equal to the price of a new CD.

Correct. Assuming of course both that you want to buy a full CD from that particular artist and that the CD is available in stores, buying the full CD would be cheaper.

Problem is, most people I've talked to complain about buying CDs only to discover that only the 1-2 "radio play" songs were worth their money. Right now, if a friend of yours has bought a CD and lets you know that the rest of the album is crap, the only legal way to get the 1-2 songs you like and would enjoy is to buy the whole CD yourself or hope that the artist put out a "single" and pay $7-8 for that instead.

$1 per song, in that scenario, is a steal.

Add to that the more obscure mixes that you'd need to buy a single to get if you could purchase them at all (and of course within six months those are completely unavailable), and the vast library of one-time one-hit wonders who may or may not be available on compilation CDs at some point (but compilation CDs tend to duplicate as well, and you tend to end up buying the same core set of songs multiple times just to get the more peripheral songs once).

Personally, I tend to buy CDs of artists I like, and enjoy exploring their less radio-friendly experiments ... often tending to put those "B-sides" on my mix tapes (sorry, still use that term even though I've not made an actual "tape" in three or four years ...) long after the "A-sides" get relegated to the archives of my music library. I do hope that the "album" option remains out there. However, I also have quite a few "dud" CDs that I bought knowing that the rest of the disk would be unlistenable, only for a single song, so I can sympathize with my friends who more overwhelmingly prefer single songs to albums.

$0.99 for a DRM-free MP3? I'd buy that for a dollar. I'd hope that eventually "album deals" would also be offered, including all the songs on the album plus maybe some related artwork/lyrics sheets.

[redAPPLE]

Originally posted by damax452
Uhh,

Am I the only person reading this forum that uses IRC?
There are literally hundreds of thousands of mp3s from obscure stuff to the newest albums at your fingertips on IRC. This is the reason why pay-per-song sites fail. The selection on a site like this could NEVER match whats on IRC. Get with the times guys. But don't steal music. Only download songs you have a legal copy of. :D

i think ppl want to get "their stuff" as easy as possible. i do not use irc.

i would not even know where to start :)

[squatch]

Originally posted by damax452
Uhh,

Am I the only person reading this forum that uses IRC?
There are literally hundreds of thousands of mp3s from obscure stuff to the newest albums at your fingertips on IRC. This is the reason why pay-per-song sites fail. The selection on a site like this could NEVER match whats on IRC. Get with the times guys. But don't steal music. Only download songs you have a legal copy of. :D

How exactly does one go about learning/using IRC on a Mac?? I've always stayed away from it for fear it was too complicated to utliize.

[colinta]

I agree strongly with those that think that an easy-to-use (we're talking about Apple, right?), high-quality (with how easy it is to vary quality in iTunes I think there will be at least one or two quality options), and a good selection (plenty of room to worry here), a per-mp3 buying service could do well.

I think there are people out there who are like myself: we try to fool ourselves by saying "I'll only rip cds that I know I'll never buy" or "I won't copy cds off the internet" but inevitably we break our own morals anyway. why? Because it is fast easy and free. fast and easy could be easily replaced by an mp3-downloading service as long as the price was not reasonable. I would feel better about my music collection if I could say that half of it was legally obtained...

As for price, I get discouraged when I see ".99/song" - what about albums? if I'm downloading an album by godspeed you black emperor then that'll cost all of $3.96 (almost all of their albums are just a few very long songs) but ween would be twenty bucks - only because of the # of tracks. I'm more worried about this situation then anything else.


Also, I wish that there was some digitized version of CD art. Something that could show up in iTunes' visualizer... but that is probably a silly idea.

[DaveGee]

Disclaimer: I do like this idea but I'm trying to think about all the different options...

Just to put another wrinkle in this...

What if they were to offer price levels where $0.99 was the 'average cost' and also offer 'bulk plans' (a whole album for say $9.99). Single songs could range from 'free' (for bands that want to become known) to $0.25 for 'b side' songs to $1.99 for 'the hits' and up to $9.99 for a full album.

I'm just throwing this out and have no idea if these rumors are even real but somehow I think the rates listed above could be more 'sellable' to those in the recording biz.

Dave

[Qball]

Originally posted by stefman
I would pay $0.99 to download a good quality song.



The problem is that you can do this now, for FREE. So there's some junk out there ... ... you can find quality MP3's for free no problem. I guess the proof is in this thread -- many of you are saying you'd pay even though there's a free alternative. I just don't think I would.

[Trimix]

I have not yet signed up for .mac, but this 99 cents offer per song would get me onto .mac and make me a very happy user.
If I spend 15-18 dollars for a CD of which I really want only 2-3 titles, then this offer would equal the purchase of 5 CDs. I have a huge list of songs I would like to have but, they are typically of performers that only ever had that one noteworthy song. And if I could have a 40MB i-pod, then that would equal about 8000 songs (probably a life's worth of songs) - woooheee - sign me up.

[moosecat]

If this happens, I hope there's a two-tier pricing structure, so that you'd get a discount if you buy the whole album. E.g., maybe $1 per song, or $.75 per song for the whole thing.

Maybe I'm a purist, but I believe in albums as cohesive works, and I don't like the idea of splitting them into pieces and only buying small parts. But I'd be unlikely to buy full MP3 albums at a price that is no better than buying a CD, which I could rip at any rate I choose and play in any car or stereo.

[grimmace]

Those of you who pay for your mp3s in the future, please stay connected to Limewire so I can download them for free. I wont pay for music but I will pay for video. If they had a video source for $2 per movie at 640x480... I would dive in. A CD costs about $15 and usually has 15 tracks or more, why pay $1 per song when you can just buy the CD?

Dont forget to leave your system open after you get all this stuff. :D

There goes my honesty.

[job]

I still think we are missing something here.

What happens if you are required to purchase an iPod in order to download the music.

As was previously mentioned, the post says nothing about being able to download it to your computer, only an iPod.

Would anyone still be willing to use the service if this was a requirement?

[jocknerd]

mp3's are inferior to the cd. Think about it. You would be willing to pay $1 to download a song in mp3 format. Thats about what you would pay per song on a cd. So you are paying the same amount for inferior quality.

What would be better is have the music service burn you a cd from the songs you choose and then mail it to you. Then you can make mp3's yourself.

[ncbill]

I think it's a great idea, but there will be some powerful people who WILL lose mucho dinero.

As others have noted, it's doubtful that you'd ever want to hear more than 3 songs on one album produced today.

So total sales would fall dramatically ($3-$5 spent on individual songs instead of $12-$18 on an album)

I'm not sure of the cut, but I would expect revenue to the coke-snorting middlemen (record company minions, etc.) would drop through the floor under this scheme.

Which I think is a good thing, but they do have the clout to oppose the deal.

Also, I appreciate all the audiophiles on this thread. I had a college professor who at one time supported his family building custom systems.

BUT, few people will be able to perceive the difference between a 192K MP3 and the original CD.

If that level of quality or better is available for a buck, sign me up!

I find Limewire and other peer to peer systems much harder to use, and much less convenient than the old Napster

[GetSome681]

Originally posted by hitman
So why don't you just buy the CD yourself and rip them to what ever bitrate you want?

The cost you will spend for the download for an entire album is roughly equal to the price of a new CD.

Honestly, the CDs I've bought, I really only listen to about half the tracks. So, maybe the cost will be the same for people who listen to the entire CD, but MOST really don't.

Honestly, for example, you go out and buy the newest and greatest rap CD....do you really listen to like those 5-6 tracks that are like skits? Those are just crap. Nowadays those take up like a third of the CD.

99 cents isn't that bad, but not saying that it's cheap enough for me, but maybe.

[Timothy]

Some quick points...

I think this is a definite plan for Apple. Under the iTunes menu, there has always been that "Shop for iTunes Products" link that is just waiting to be used. This is a natural extension of iTunes.

The villification of the music industry as a means to justify the stealing of music is laughable. For those who are familiar with the industry, it is not so easy to make the simplistic distinctions that are being made. Ultimately, stealing music and forcing the idea that all music should be free actually hurts the small, independent artists much more than it will hurt the large corporate interests.

There is a large contingent of humanity that wants to be moral, and well-crafted services will appear that allow us to do so and to support artists at the same time. I'd use this service extensively, and can't wait for Apple to implement it.

[ennerseed]

Originally posted by kfury
I've seen a lot of comments on this thread about people being arbitrarily pass along purchased mp3s to others willy-nilly.

Duh folks, if you buy a real CD and pop it into your mac, it's going to encode them into mp3s that you could pass along just as easily.

Forget albums, and think mp3-centric for a second: If you use iTunes as your primary music repository and you want a specific new song or album, you have a few options:

* Leave your computer and go to the record store to buy it
* Buy it from amazon or other online vendor and wait for several days
* Use a p2p tool to pirate it and get it fastest
* Use a one-click service to get it legally and instantly.

No matter which route you go you have an mp3 that could be passed on to others, but right now the only way to get instant gratification is to break the law. That would change with one-click downloads of mp3s.

One-click is easier than pirating because you're sure of what you're getting. It also happens to be legal. And those who pay for mp3s are probably not those who will turn around and propogate them to the web at large. Morality begets morality.

The point is that piracy is work, going to the record store is work, and ordering from amazon and waiting is work. An instant download and micropayment system is not work, and if there's one thing that people like less than paying money, it's working.

This will succeed.


THANK YOU

[Capt. Obvious]

Originally posted by LethalWolfe
[B]If Ms. Love wants her songs to be traded that's great. If she's the copyright holder she can do what she wants w/them. But what about the artists that don't want their songs to be traded? It's their music and, by law, they dicate how and when their songs can be distributed and used.
This is a MAJOR fallacy, one cooked up & continually propped up by the industry; it's based on pure ************.

"It's their music", and that may earn them a nickel a CD in songwriter's royalties, but it gives them NO CONTROL WHATEVER - not over the recording of "their music". THE RECORDING belongs to the label, lock, stock, & barrel, and THE LABEL has total control. Virtually every cent brought in by CD sales goes directly to the label, in the form of free money. The artists (remember them?) may get a pittance, but only AFTER all production & marketing costs are charged against their "share" (this includes the 100's of 1000's of promo disks given away EACH MONTH - paid for out of the ARTIST's pocket).

The whole point of the music industry (recording variety) is to screw artists out of their creative product & turn it into free money, just like the plantation owners in the old days let the sharecroppers do all the work, while they took the product & lived high off the resulting profits; the sharcroppers on the other hand, found themselves in a never-ending spiral of poverty & debt - a legally-binding trap from which there was virtually no escape.

It really is just this straight-forward & simple: the labels are the plantations: the artists are the sharecroppers. You CAN'T screw the artists as bad as the labels do, even if you never buy another CD/tape/whatever. The reason why Love, McGuinn, etc like downloading is because THEY WANT THEIR MUSIC BACK - and the only way to get it is to eliminate music as a source of free money for the plantation-owners.
IMO it's about respect and general principle.
I totally agree. That's why we didn't allow the plantation-owners to have the only say about whether or not it was okay for them to parasitically feed off the sweat & labor of others. That's why the label fat-cats can't be allowed to define terms like 'copyright' and 'piracy' in ways that perpetuate their ability to prey upon both artists & the listening public.

It is ABSOLUTELY about respect, and about principle; and IMO, your position demonstrates neither.

I'd gladly pay $20 per CD, if I KNEW that the artist was getting $10 of it. I WANT the artists to make money off their music - I love music all the way down into my bones, and I want the people who make the music to make LOTS of it. I want the labels to turn a profit, too (believe it or not), but I ALSO believe in the idea of honest profit from honest work.

I do NOT believe in slavery, or anything like it; I do not believe in corporate predators feeding off the brightest and most creative; I do not believe that artists are cattle, to be used for the profit & pleasure of the cattle barons.

The whole notion that 'freely-available music hurts the artists' is pure poison, and self-serving corporate propaganda of the worst sort. By that same logic, slaves are happier on the plantation - and the jews were better off in the ovens.

Lethal, this isn't about YOU, ok? So don't take it personally, please.

And this is not a justification for breaking the law; however, there IS such a thing as bad law. Bad laws unfairly hurt some, and allow others to unfairly profit, and such laws should be changed, not sanctimoniously justified!

[Qball]

Try Acquisition, as it's much better than Limewire.

Originally posted by ncbill






I find Limewire and other peer to peer systems much harder to use, and much less convenient than the old Napster

[JGowan]

I am sick and tired of giving the Record companies $15, 16, or $17 bucks for a new CD -- especially when it turns out that the only song worth a d@mn is the one that's been on the radio.

Since I got my ipod, it's been USED music all the way: amazon, ebay, Wherehouse music, etc. Normally, I can a find a decent enough copy for about $6-8 (including shipping) ... maybe I can't buy the very NEWEST music this way, but at 37 years of age, all the music I really want to hear has been out for some time anyway. Just one good rip at 192 is all I care about anyway.

Even the local library is a fantastic source for music and audio books -- free. I know I'm opening a can of worms here so flame-on. My local library has 7 different branches all within about 15 miles of each other so some Saturdays, I'll just hit all of them and come back with bags and bags of stuff -- and 3 weeks to rip 'em.

But here's the twist: about 2 months ago, I raided my own CD collection for about 50 titles and took them down and gave them to the closest branch. Giving back felt pretty good.

[damax452]

For those of you asking about how to use IRC:

http://www.ircle.com/

This is one of many IRC client for Macs. It is free, allows you to connect to IRC just like any other client. I strongly urge people who have never used it to try. You will thank me after you learn to use it well. Its kinda frustrating to learn for some but its well worth your effort. And in no time you'll be downloading full albums ripped at 192kbps all packed into one zip file. Or download individual songs if thats your thing. And did i mention all this is free? $ .99 for one mp3 is ridiculous in my opinion. Unless that money goes directly to the artist, which is highly doubtful. Damn record companies. The ONLY way a pay-for-mp3s site to work is if its very cheap (as in < 50cents per mp3) and the selection is very very large. But this would be impossible in my opinion. You will understand why after you see the magnitude of mp3 trading that goes on on IRC. Good Luck. ;)

[Skelator]

A single song for .99 is good, but when purchasing an album it should switch to a charge per min/sec. That way you don't end up paying $25 cause the artists like to throw little 30 sec intro talks or sound effects on the fornt of every track.

[ariza910]

I use to be one of those that argued that the artist should get more $$$ but after really looking at what the music industry does, it really seems fair the way it is.

A lot of you are very confused about the music industry. I dont necessarily agree with it either but it is a business and it gives artist more opportunities than they would ever have on their own.

There are many elements of the music industry. First theres recording and production of music. Equipment, production rooms, studios, ect. Next there’s manufacturing of CDs and Distribution of CDs to music stores. Finally, the music company will market and promote the artist in everything from TV and Movies to radio, magazine and posters. Music companies will also secure concert venues, clubs, TV appearances, and other live performances.

The Music companies are paying for all of this up front!! The majority of artist would never be able to put together such an operation for themselves on such a large scale.

Music is an expensive business. We are at a very interesting time in music history. For the first time music companies are spending millions on producing and promoting artist and consumers are eating all of that up and then pirating the music.

So its sort of like the music industry paying millions to entertain us and sell us music and not getting any money in return because we are down loading it for free.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years when music companies are no longer getting the same revenue from CD sales.

[ariza910]

Here is a break down of where the money goes on the sale of a CD
Manufacturing 10%
Marketing 30%
Distribution 40%
The remaining 20% is split between the music company and the artist, depending on how popular the artist is.

As you can see if music companies where able to sell music online they would be eliminating 50% (manufacturing 10% & Distribution 40%) of the cost of selling music.

The only new cost would be that of storage and servers to provide the music online, but this is more of a fixed cost. Once the fix cost is paid for then all sales after that would be profit for both the label and the artist. This may bring about a situation where artist are payed more.

This is all given that people actually use the pay per track service, which I think will work because its easy and guaranteed.

No more incomplete, low quality songs, or tracks of nothing but loops, or slow down loads, all of which is associated with P2P networks, what a pain in the ass.


just my two cents:)

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by ncbill
As others have noted, it's doubtful that you'd ever want to hear more than 3 songs on one album produced today.

So total sales would fall dramatically ($3-$5 spent on individual songs instead of $12-$18 on an album)


Hmmm. Actually, history shows that when consumers in a free, luxury-based economy are given the ability to buy just what they want without the artificial barnacles, and likewise when they are given the ability to more reliably research their purchases (ie, know which songs/albums are good before you buy them), overall consumption goes up, not down.

Yeah, I won't be buying tracks 5-12 from CD1, but CDs 2, 3, and 4 which I would have completely passed up before will now get $1-2 in per-song purchases.

Again, historically speaking, when the consumer is freed from artificial restrictions overall consumption goes up, not down.

The only cases where this is not true are when adding the ability to purchase by item instead of by package added too much complexity to the overall process. So, again, simplicity is a primary goal with the system. Personally, I don't think that adding a per-song download mechanism will increase the market complexity by any measurable amount, and so this is not a real hazard.

Now, that having been said, this is still a bad idea for the traditional record company executive. The recording industry is built on exclusivity (you'll probably not get a platinum album out if you're signed with Jim Bob's Records instead of A&M) and consumer ignorance ("hook" listeners with the most infectious track, and have them buy the whole CD for that one song ... invest no effort or resources in making the rest of the album as appealing as the single track ...) On the other hand, building an industry on exclusivity and ignorance is not a good long-term business plan, and said executives should just be happy they were able to hold the scam for as long as they did.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by ariza910
I use to be one of those that argued that the artist should get more $$$ but after really looking at what the music industry does, it really seems fair the way it is.

A lot of you are very confused about the music industry. I dont necessarily agree with it either but it is a business and it gives artist more opportunities than they would ever have on their own.

There are many elements of the music industry. First theres recording and production of music. Equipment, production rooms, studios, ect. Next there?s manufacturing of CDs and Distribution of CDs to music stores. Finally, the music company will market and promote the artist in everything from TV and Movies to radio, magazine and posters. Music companies will also secure concert venues, clubs, TV appearances, and other live performances.

The Music companies are paying for all of this up front!! The majority of artist would never be able to put together such an operation for themselves on such a large scale.


The record company is not paying this up-front. They are giving the artist a high-risk loan to pay for these costs. If the artist ever (ever, meaning on any future albums) makes a "profit" on their music, that profit is garnisheed and put towards paying off the artist's "debt" to his record label.

But, yes, many such loans do not get repaid, and the record companies are taking a risk in granting them. However, enough do get repaid that the bigger record companies make a killing on their profits.

Also, note that the record company both provides the funding for this and dictates the prices of such. If the record company owns a studio that the artist is to use, the record company charges a "rent" on that studio to the artist for the time the artist in in there, which "rent" is a large profit-center for the company. If a record company has production staff on salary which the artist uses, that staff is hired by the artist as consultants, whose fees end up being much more than their salaries, and which, again, is a large profit-center for the company financials.

I mean, I'm a software developer. The recording artist's plight is somewhat akin to all software companies paying by commission (1/2% of all software sales in the first five years), which commission is countered by charges of $.50 per printed page, $2 per hour of computer use, $10 per day or partial day of office use and $50 per hour per other employee I consult with while developing said software. But, hey, at least the company will give me a "loan" for my office fees that I only have to pay back if I ever get a check from them.

No other industry would live with this. The recording industry thrives on the dreams of starry-eyed youth and the naivety that they believe they (or at least their Uncle Slomo the accountant) can distinguish the overall worthiness of a contract. The "standard" contract in the industry is a wholesale raping of the artist, but artists sign it because every "expert" they ask will say, "Yup, that's the standard contract all right!". It's not illegal, but it is certainly reprehensible.


Music is an expensive business. We are at a very interesting time in music history. For the first time music companies are spending millions on producing and promoting artist and consumers are eating all of that up and then pirating the music.


Music is a very cheap business. All you need is a talented artist and maybe a musical instrument, and you've got music. What is expensive is the fact that the industry has accrued so very many layers of bureaucracy and marketing that all need to be fed profits. The industry is expensive, which expense is both self-created and self-sustaining.


So its sort of like the music industry paying millions to entertain us and sell us music and not getting any money in return because we are down loading it for free.

It will be interesting to see what happens in the next few years when music companies are no longer getting the same revenue from CD sales.

The industry's profits are down 7.5% in the past year, according to their own numbers. In that same time period, their overall output is down 20-25%, according to externally verifiable numbers (IMHO, if you exclude the pop crap and just talk about "good" music, their overall output has declined much more than just 20% in the past year, but everyone has different tastes so I'll leave it at that). I don't know about your job situation, but I can be damned sure that if my output was down 20% for no justifiable reason, I might soon expect to lose a bit of pay, and if my company started releasing 20% fewer features in all our software for a year that in about six months the entire office would be out on the street.

So, no, I'm not shedding any tears for the record industry. They had a great run on this scam, and lived large for a good long time. But all free rides must eventually end.

[ariza910]

Yes all you need to make music is an artist and maybe an instrument. But who is going to want to listen to a record made in someone’s garage or crappy studio with no production.

The fact is that artist that sign the contract are NOT trying to make music purely for the artistic value, they are trying to get MONEY and FAME out of it. If artist made music for the pure artistry then they wouldnt care about making tons of money.

The music industry is providing much more than music, they create entertainment. Much like a movie artist is just one part of a movie, a musician is just part of the whole entertainment the music industry provides.

The music industry pushes artist into the public eye. Its not just music thats being sold its videos, live performances, TV interviews, merchandise not to mention that bigger than life experience.

Without the music industry we wouldn’t have any superstars, no Elvis on Johnny Carson, No Beatle invasion, none of that. How sad.

Music without the Music industry would be like public access television. The music industry adds all of the elements that truly makes most forms of music exciting.

Artist cant do it all on their own, without the large music companies all we would have is a mess of random labels trying to hustle you into buying some low quality record from the artist they are ripping off.

Oh to stay on topic, i cant wait for a pay per track apple service, it will be awsome even if its only MP3 quality.

[Capt. Obvious]

Originally posted by ariza910
Yes all you need to make music is an artist and maybe an instrument. But who is going to want to listen to a record made in someone?s garage or crappy studio with no production.
And now, we have the official trolling-line from the RIAA. I have neither the time nor energy right now to rebut ariza910's comments at length: rest assured, however, I'll be back to do so, and soon.

In the meantime, ask yourself: if the RIAA wanted to sleaze their way past the charges levelled against them - and wanted to do so in an on-line forum such as this one - how would they approach the task?

Think about that as your read ariza910's remarks....

[ariza910]

I have nothing to do with the RIAA or the music industry for that matter.

My comments are based on observations I have made about the music industry as well as what I have heard people say about it.

I am sick of people saying that CDs are expensive when they don’t even take the time to research why thy are so expensive.

The cost of a CD is based on what it cost to produce, market and sell people this Music.

As Americans we don’t want just the music we want the whole superstar package, people follow what’s popular not necessarily what’s good music. I despise the way the music industry is able to manipulate peoples taste in music through marketing, I wont even start with the effect of MTV.

For a long time I argued on the side of artist and complained about CD prices. I believed that the artist should get a larger % of the cost of the CD.

But the more I researched it the more I realized that the artist are out there for the MONEY and the FAME not for the sake of making music. So if they want the money and the fame they are going to have to sign that contract. That contract will give them the studio access, the quality production, marketing, Videos, TV spots, live performances ect ect. All of that cost money, all of that is paid for by the music companies, all of that is what you pay for in the cost of a CD.

Do the research, find the FACTS, and remember to always keep an open mind, don’t take my word for it or accuses me of being part of the RIAA, take what I have said and look it up. I am only trying to open peoples minds on the issue. If I am proven wrong on any of what I have said, and its based on truth I will change my mind, for now this is the way I believe. Please try to prove me wrong. But do it with real facts not with personal insults.
:)

[d46799]

The fat cat record execs are soiling their pants over this whole digital music revolution--I *love* it! $1 a song is great...I would pay that to legitimately own a song I enjoy for life, and I think I'm not alone. Let 95% of it go directly to the artist, with maybe 5% to the distribution channel (website). I think theres going to be a LOT of money made in the music industry in the next decades, and the fat cat execs are going to see less and less of it, until they're cut out completely and have to compete with eachother for jobs at McDonalds. Hopefully the artists will be seeing more and more of the money. Let the artists hire a producer of their choice and negotiate a fee/percentage/whatever directly. Last of all, let me please have my 40GB iPod soon! Just my $.02.

[NSObject]

Music Service? Would be clever...

[NSObject]

Music Service? Would be clever...

[Trimix]

d46799, don't forget ZX Spectrum, 48 KB rule, LOL

You have it spot on - give me a song for a dollar and let me have my 40gb i-pod soon !!! If then the thing could be built like the proverbial you-know-what, then I would have a perfect means to carry around my favorite songs for almost ever - yeah yeah - of course I would rush out and buy the 80gb i-pod too and the 160gb i-pod which doubles up as a telephone, and the 320 gb i-pod which is a tv, a phaser, a medical scanner, an organizer and gaming console and whatever else we can come up with :)

More to the point I truly would want this service to become reality.

[jimjiminyjim]

I like the idea. Good music, good quality, and good choice gain my vote.

I also support the idea of a 95% - 5% split for artist and website. It IMO is more appropriate for independent artists, aspiring artists, and those recording from home (the "crappy" recordings can be pretty high quality with a $200 microphone, a $400 analog-digital converter, something like the $50 Sound Studio, and some cut and paste skills).

I'd like to see the service cater to independent and aspiring artists, if only on a secondary level. I would be extremely excited about the creativity and diversity inspired by such a service, and by the opportunity to share my own music.

Finally, before the flames I guess I have to acknowledge that the moderation to insure quality recordings (in terms of both musical ability and recording clarity) would be extensive.

What the heck - Apple Innovates. Support Independent Artists in the Music World, Apple.

[TwitchOSX]

That $20 for a CD with half or less than half of the songs being any good is a rip off. Thats why people pirate and d/l music illegally. I know I would much rather pay for only the music that I enjoy. You get bands who get a one hit wonder, then fill their CD's with filler CRAP and sell them for $20 when all you really wanted was that one song. Problem fixed. $0.99 for that one song. Sure the band may not get as much money but its more money to them than having the whole world pirate their stuff because they made a CD full of crap and one good song. I know that I would definately pay $0.99 for a track that I like. The problems here are this:

They cant have just Top 40 crap. They MUST have a huge library. Im talking like the big record companies and then allow any smaller record companies to offer their tracks as well. I like a lot of trance and electronic music which isnt distributed by the large USA and European record labels so there would have to be a partner program for other record distributors or personal people that want to sell their music as well like on mp3.com.

Second, Apple would make a big mistake to force people to sign up for .Mac to use this service. I would say, it would be feesable to say that they could charge .Mac customers $0.99/song and non .Mac users like $1.05 or something like that per song. That would work out perfectly. But Apple would have to work long and hard on this thing and if it were to ever happen, it wouldnt happen for a while, since the major record companies right now have their heads so far up their asses that they dont know what the hell to do.

[Capt. Obvious]

Originally posted by ariza910
I have nothing to do with the RIAA or the music industry for that matter.

My comments are based on observations I have made about the music industry as well as what I have heard people say about it.

I am sick of people saying that CDs are expensive when they don?t even take the time to research why thy are so expensive.

The cost of a CD is based on what it cost to produce, market and sell people this Music.

Do the research, find the FACTS, and remember to always keep an open mind, don?t take my word for it or accuses me of being part of the RIAA, take what I have said and look it up. I am only trying to open peoples minds on the issue. If I am proven wrong on any of what I have said, and its based on truth I will change my mind, for now this is the way I believe. Please try to prove me wrong. But do it with real facts not with personal insults.
Fair enough - I will assume that you are not a paid agent of the RIAA.

However, that doesn't help your "argument" much. Challenging an argument armed with opinion instead of fact puts you in a VERY weak position; then demanding that others "prove you wrong" by using fact instead of opinion - well, it makes you a hypocrite AT BEST.

Dig it - you HAVE no facts; if you did, you would have used them. You say 'do the research', but you haven't done it: your research comes straight out of BillBoard, the RIAA, and TigerBeat

You will surely think that these are personal insults, but I'm just stating the plain truth: you have provided NO grounds upon which to insist that others do what you can't be bothered with - research.

As far as factual bases for arguments go, I have been involved in the record business for many years - both retail & radio - and have been a musician for more than 30 years. I am not active in the industry at the moment but I still have friends, and I have kept current; where my information is out of date, it is not MUCH out of date. My remarks in this thread are based on my personal knowledge and experience IN the industry, and on my knowelde of both the labels' side and the srtists' side.

So, you want to say I'm wrong, fine - back it up. If you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, that my understanding is faulty, that I have a poor grasp of the situation, please do - but if you want to challenge me (or anybody else), bring logic, bring fact, bring your personal eyewitness accounts, bring SOMETHING to support your challenge...or else leave it alone.

Or, as the Diceman might say: if you can't party w/ the big boys, don't show up.

[deeg]

as others have mentioned for a full album at .99 its not worth it but i would be interested in being able to cherry pick tracks providing its payment per track and not on top of a subscription

[ariza910]

Originally posted by Capt. Obvious


So, you want to say I'm wrong, fine - back it up. If you can demonstrate that I'm wrong, that my understanding is faulty, that I have a poor grasp of the situation, please do - but if you want to challenge me (or anybody else), bring logic, bring fact, bring your personal eyewitness accounts, bring SOMETHING to support your challenge...or else leave it alone.

Or, as the Diceman might say: if you can't party w/ the big boys, don't show up.

Capt. Obvious,

You have done nothing but say how wrong I am, yet you havent said why I am wrong or backed up your reasoning what so ever. What I have stated in my other post is the reality of the business. I realize that artist dont get paid much from CD sales and its a shame but there is a reason for it. It cost a lot of money to do everything that these record companies are doing.

You more than anyone should know how much it would all cost to do it yourself. You have studio, equipment, recording, manufacturing, distribution, booking of venues and marketing. Artist sign that contract becuase they dont want or cant compete with all of that. Record companies do all of that.

What you want is a record company to give you free studio time, free equipment, get you shows, put your face all over the meida, put your CDs in retail chains and then give you 90% of the sales, thats just crazy.

You are way to emotionaly involved because you are an artist and I understand that, but try to take a look at it objectivly. If your going to tell me im wrong about something make sure to say why.

[Squire]

In my opinion, a pay-per-song service would be a good thing. Just to be able to listen to a song before you buy it would be a bonus.

Recently, I downloaded demo versions of some songs off the Net. (If you're interested, it was Audioslave- the combined efforts of 3 former Rage Against the Machine members and Chris Cornell, of former Soundgarden fame.) I made a CD with these pre-release demo tracks, listened to it constantly, and waited patiently for the release. The album, for me at least, is one of those albums where you throw it in the CD player, press play, then don't touch another button until it's finished. I thought it was that good.

It was about 13 dollars. When you consider the cost of a blank CD, the questionable quality, and most of all, my precious time, that's a steal for 12 or 13 tracks and less bother than downloading.

My point is this: I believe that the Internet Revolution (for lack of a better term) will lead to an overall better listening experience for the masses. The so-so artists who create so-so albums and get by on looks and dancing ability will hurt. But when I listen to music, I don't care whether the singer is cute and can dance. It's a sad state when the general public settles for mediocrity- something that's been going on for far too long. That's probably going to change.

Thanks for listening.

[johnbr54]

These guys are going to have a PR nightmare on their hands when/if they start promoting a $0.99/song feature.

Do they really want to advertise the fact that a 20GB ipod can hold 4000 songs, then say you can get these songs for just $0.99?!?! (of course most people will just use their own CD's or track down mp3's the old fashioned way), but suggesting to people that a "fully stocked" ipod could possibly cost them close to $4000, wow, I wouldn't want to have to come up with the ad campaign for that one.

:confused:

[MrBillGates]

I can't believe this crap!!!!!

[Mr. Anderson]

Crap removed - the offender was banned. Lets just hope he doesn't decide to come back.

D

[Timothy]

It occurs to me that if Apple is planning on releasing new iPods in conjunction with the unveiling of a new music service, that they would need to do this at an event; be it a press event or a keynote address where they can lay out the vision of the new service to the public.

If this is the case, I doubt we'll see the new iPods just popping up on a random Tuesday or other day without some actual event by which they will be introduced.

So, my guess is that a few days prior to the release, we'll hear about a press event, very similar to the manner in which the iPod was initially released. Or, alternatively, are there any smaller shows/events coming up that Apple could use to unveil such a service?

This speculation all depends upon the assumption that the two will be released together; and I can see marketing value to doing it that way.

[npm]

March 4, 2003
By Jon Healey, Times Staff Writer

Executives of major record firms believe a speedy, simple online music service for Mac users will be a hit.

Top executives at the major record companies have finally found an online music service that makes them excited about the digital future - but it's only for Macs.

The new service was developed by Apple Computer Inc., sources said Monday, and offers users of Macintoshes and iPod portable music players many of the same capabilities that already are available from services previously endorsed by the labels. But the Apple offering won over music executives because it makes buying and downloading music as simple and non-technical as buying a book from Amazon.com.

©LA Times, free registration for the complete story!!!

[ELYXR]

Nice... looks like The LA Times did some good reporting... even beat Apple's announcement.

Nice find! ;)

[ELYXR]

Labels Think Apple Has Perfect Pitch
Executives of major record firms believe a speedy, simple online music service for Mac users will be a hit.

By Jon Healey, Times Staff Writer


Top executives at the major record companies have finally found an online music service that makes them excited about the digital future — but it's only for Macs.

The new service was developed by Apple Computer Inc., sources said Monday, and offers users of Macintoshes and iPod portable music players many of the same capabilities that already are available from services previously endorsed by the labels. But the Apple offering won over music executives because it makes buying and downloading music as simple and non-technical as buying a book from Amazon.com.

"This is exactly what the music industry has been waiting for," said one person familiar with the negotiations between the Cupertino, Calif., computer maker and the labels. "It's hip. It's quick. It's easy. If people on the Internet are actually interested in buying music, not just stealing it, this is the answer."

That ease of use has music executives optimistic that the Apple service will be an effective antidote to surging piracy on the Internet, sources said.

Other legitimate music services have cumbersome technology and pricing plans — motivated in part by the labels' demands for security — that make them much harder to use than unauthorized online services, such as the Kazaa file-sharing system.

Although no licensing deals have been announced, sources close to the situation say at least four of the five major record companies have committed their music to the Apple service. It could be launched next month.

As promising as the new service is, however, there is a big limitation. Apple's products account for just a sliver of the total computer market — less than 3% of the computers sold worldwide are Macs. The vast majority of the potential audience for downloadable music services uses machines that run Microsoft Corp.'s Windows software.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the service Monday, as did representatives from the five major record corporations — Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group, Bertelsmann's BMG division and EMI Group.

The new service is so important to Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs that he personally demonstrated it to top executives at all five companies, sources said. More than a dozen music executives have visited Apple since last summer and came away enthusiastic.

The executives also like the massive marketing plan designed by Jobs to educate consumers about the service.

The plan contrasts sharply with Apple's previous marketing campaign for Macs, which rankled many music executives who felt it promoted piracy. Apple's advertisements were emblazoned with the mantra "rip, mix, burn," referring to the computers' ability to copy songs and record them onto CDs.

Although the iPod has been hailed by many critics as the best portable music player on the market, Mac users have been overlooked by most of the label-backed online music services, including Pressplay, MusicNet and Listen.com Inc.'s Rhapsody.

As a result, Mac users may find it easier to make unauthorized, free copies of songs through an online file-sharing service like LimeWire than to buy a copy through a label-sanctioned service. Apple hopes to change that situation with its new service, which is expected to be included in an updated edition of the iLife package of digital music, photo and movie software.

Sources said Apple will make the songs available for sale through a new version of iTunes, its software for managing music files on Macs. Users will be able to buy and download songs with a single click and transfer them automatically to any iPod they've registered with Apple.

Rather than make the songs available in the popular MP3 format, Apple plans to use a higher fidelity technology known as Advanced Audio Codec.

That approach allows the songs to be protected by electronic locks that prevent them from being played on more than one computer. Still, sources say, Apple wants to enable buyers to burn songs onto CDs. That feature would effectively remove the locks.

That's been a sticking point for executives at Sony, sources said. The other four major record companies, however, appear ready to license their music to the new service.

No details were available on the price of the service, although one source said it would be competitive with other services in the market. Pressplay, for example, charges just under $10 a month for unlimited downloads, plus about $1 for each song that can be burned to CD or transferred to a portable device.

[Trimix]

in response to johnbr54

4000 songs at 1 dollar a piece and how to market it ?

If we assume a user say is 35 and has bought cds since they came out, then he or she could have easily loaded up on 400 cds over a period of say 20 years. One's own example always stinks but with me it is the case.
I am now going through all these cds to put them on my i-mac and I am finding about 1000 songs on these cds I really really want to hear again and again or which bring back memories. So I for one have easily spent 6000 dollars or more even on my cd collection - I could have had all the songs that matter to me with this service for 1000 dollars.
I am not suggesting that we buy an i-pod and immediately download 4000 songs and make it the most valuable player on earth, but as we go along through life some 20 - 40 really good songs would make it easily onto a player per year.
With my batting average that would equal to 10-20 cds ;)
I for one see tremendous savings

[Awimoway]

The LA Times story is huge. Confirmation.

Several comments...

Sony's real sticking point is probably that it's heavily invested in Windows?

If Apple can't get Sony to sign on, will they kill the whole program? As everyone has mentioned, selection is critical to success.

The article only mentions the big five. If Apple does not seek them out, will smaller labels be able to join the program of their own initiative? Will enough of the smaller labels bother?

The article says the new program will come out in a month in an updated version of iTunes. Will this be iTunes 3.1 or the next major upgrade, v. 4, with Rendezvous?

Now that we know it probably will happen, who thinks that the program will be part of .mac?

The article is right in pointing out that Apple OSs have been largely overlooked with current pay-for-download services. This is further evidence that Apple isn't waiting around for third-parties to fill the gaps anymore.

Does anyone know anything about "Advanced Audio Codec"? Will older/current iPods be able to play them?

Finally, Apple rocks. It's so good to be with an innovator.

[nodmonkey]

excellent, excellent news.

i think it explains the iPod delay. apple need to iron out this deal and the workings of their new iTunes and iPod setup. i guess they are running a little behind schedule and didn't make enough of the old model iPods to last out.

they might be running on empty for iPods for as much as a couple of months i forsee, before they get this whole deal up and running... but then that's no need for a lack of official announcements. if there's no iPods left, then the announcement can't much damage sales! in fact, it would get other mp3-player-buyers to wait a while for the iPod after all.

can anyone forsee a service for windows being integrated into MusicMatch, the iTunes for Windows that works with the iPod? maybe a few months later down the line.

you just know microsoft are going to be immitating the whole thing VERY soon, and steal Apple's well-deserved glory. bah!

[claughery]

why do you see them running short on ipods?

[nodmonkey]

well, i was under the impression that iPods were hard to come by right now. sorry if i am wrong about that. maybe it's just the 5gb ones.

point taken.

[claughery]

Oh... I thought that you might have implied that they will not come out with new ipods for some time still...

[nodmonkey]

that is what i implied. i thought no new iPods until new the iPods and iTunes can be tailored to this new music service. it sounded in the LA Times report as though the whole service still needed some work. maybe not, though. maybe it will all be out very soon.

but i haven't got my hopes up for an update being imminent.

[marcsiry]

The new service is so important to Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs that he personally demonstrated it to top executives at all five companies, sources said. More than a dozen music executives have visited Apple since last summer and came away enthusiastic.



Nothing like a little personal application of the RDF to change minds and influence opinions... :-)

SJ rules!

[peter2002]

Seems to be true. L.A. Times reports that Apple indeed is coming out with a new music service.

Sources said Apple will make the songs available for sale through a new version of iTunes, its software for managing music files on Macs. Users will be able to buy and download songs with a single click and transfer them automatically to any iPod they've registered with Apple.

Rather than make the songs available in the popular MP3 format, Apple plans to use a higher fidelity technology known as Advanced Audio Codec.

That approach allows the songs to be protected by electronic locks that prevent them from being played on more than one computer. Still, sources say, Apple wants to enable buyers to burn songs onto CDs. That feature would effectively remove the locks.

That's been a sticking point for executives at Sony, sources said. The other four major record companies, however, appear ready to license their music to the new service.

No details were available on the price of the service, although one source said it would be competitive with other services in the market. Pressplay, for example, charges just under $10 a month for unlimited downloads, plus about $1 for each song that can be burned to CD or transferred to a portable device.

http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-music4mar04,1,7646945.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dtodays%2Dtimes

[bkassing]

Are we ready to add this to the junk rumor list yet? Where the heck is the new iPod

[nodmonkey]

i concur to those who predict a post-war release. waiting for people to be over that, and thinking about their home-affairs. so, a month still, maybe more, i think.

[syco]

Here's my take on the whole thing.

Apple's going to release, at the same time, the new iPods, the music service, and a new version of iTunes (the one with AAC and Rendezvous). The music service will feature maybe a variation on a theme - specifically, perhaps Ogg or AAC (or whatever the open source one is), to feature support for anti-piracy. Perhaps, iTunes will support the music in a proprietary format, only available to iTunes, and being stored in some discreet, far-away invisible folder somewhere.

This service will be successful. Its being deployed by a company who runs huge servers and has the software base for customers (iTunes) already in place. Plus, many CDs nowadays come out with a whopping 9 or 10 songs on the CD, but still cost $16 or $17. Also, not everyone likes every song on the CD. This way, you get what you want, and it inspires musicians to make better music, because that way more songs will get bought.

Added: Personally, I don't buy CDs anymore, because of the premiums of the CD, and because so little money actually goes to the artist. Also, I don't feel like dragging my ass out to the store and deciding "Hrmm...what should I spend $20 on today?" This plan makes it easy. 1-Click is a genius idea. Once this plan launches, I'll be in line to sign up.

[bkassing]

I don't buy the post-war thing. If every company stopped selling stuff because of the war, then they'll go out of business. I'm still out selling. It's a positive thing in a world of negativity.

[nodmonkey]

Originally posted by bkassing
I don't buy the post-war thing. If every company stopped selling stuff because of the war, then they'll go out of business. I'm still out selling. It's a positive thing in a world of negativity.

Well, Apple most definitely haven't stopped selling because of the war. They still advertise and sell their products today as before the war. And I support the attitude of positivity in spite of the war, to not let things fall apart/stop because of it.

I just believe it to be a wiser business move to announce a major new product (which the iPod/Music Service will be, it will be groundbreaking) when more media attention will be likely, or at least when the public are in a state to care more about such announcements.

[madmizzen]

Just saw this over at Wired News and thought it shed some good light on the plausiblity of the .99$ price point.

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,58229,00.html

[Capt. Obvious]

Originally posted by bkassing
I don't buy the post-war thing. If every company stopped selling stuff because of the war, then they'll go out of business. I'm still out selling. It's a positive thing in a world of negativity.
Not the point - why should Apple release something new & splash-worthy at a time when everyone's mind is elsewhere?

As long as eyes, hearts, & minds are riveted to events in Iraq, no-one will notice something as non-essential & ultimately insignificant as a new music-download service. (Yes, Mac users can be quite a self-obsessed group, so I suppose WE might notice...but everyone else will be watching the other news.)

Apple's style of kung-fu involves arranging maximum buzz & maximum attention for every new product, every significant move; doing something now, it would have to be big enough, startling enough to draw attention away from the Middle East, and there is no more compelling human drama than war.

In other words, if Apple waits & lets things umm...digest a bit, situations may improve, marketing-wise, and they'll be able to catch an extra eyeball or 2wo; otherwise, they face an almost-certain waste of money, resources and opportunity.

And in the current economy, can even Apple afford that?

[Capt. Obvious]

Originally posted by madmizzen
Just saw this over at Wired News and thought it shed some good light on the plausiblity of the .99$ price point.

http://www.wired.com/news/digiwood/0,1412,58229,00.html

Gawd.

VH-1, the website, where you can watch the videos, and read for free about the artists and the tours and the "industry news", but all top-40/AOR (w/ a little Eminem, & a splash of metal for spice), and a 1-click-purchase (oh, so easy!) to hear the toons...at 99¢ each....

I'm sure this idea has appeal for those who are looking for new ways to wring every dime out of the public, but I'm not interested.

[Odox]

Come on then! All the offers on Ipods run out today - Ipod has to be updated this tuesday! :D

...probably... right?

[JupiterTwo]

new ipods today? must be some kind of april's fool? :D


I'll get my coat....

[getalife03]

I like the idea, but a per-song price would become rediculously expensive. It should be like $5 a month. If you have a 5 gig Ipod, it would cost you around $1500 to fill it up. That's a lot of money...and you're spending $299 just to buy it. That's an estimate of $1799 to fill up and own a 5 gig Ipod. That's a lot of money. Also, what happens (I've done this in the past) if you delete 50 songs to free up space on your hard drive, and then 3 months later you want one of those songs to put on a cd, or 2 or 3 of those songs. Do you pay another $3 just to get those 3 songs that you already payed for? Something to think about...

[RLB]

Appleinsider has an article saying that the new music service is supposed to launch this month - April 28th. I hope this brings new ipods. Also, rolling stone magazine is supposed to have an article on the new music service.

[bkassing]

I like the idea, but a per-song price would become rediculously expensive. It should be like $5 a month. If you have a 5 gig Ipod, it would cost you around $1500 to fill it up. That's a lot of money...and you're spending $299 just to buy it. That's an estimate of $1799 to fill up and own a 5 gig Ipod. That's a lot of money. Also, what happens (I've done this in the past) if you delete 50 songs to free up space on your hard drive, and then 3 months later you want one of those songs to put on a cd, or 2 or 3 of those songs. Do you pay another $3 just to get those 3 songs that you already payed for? Something to think about...

I think what people are forgetting is that the $.99/song pricing takes into account theft. How much? Perhaps $.75 as people continue to pass around songs. We may all be honest about it, but lets understand how easy it is to move around songs.

[Timothy]

OK, I have no idea how credible the rumor at Apple Insider is...but, if it is true, this might contain a hint at a reason for release date...

IF apple has secured a feature story in Rolling Stone, it would make sense for Apple to announce the service on the day that the Magazine hits the racks. Anyone know what day in the month RS typically is available?

If they could secure a feature in Rolling Stone, and perhaps a cover article, that would be great press; and given the status of Steve Jobs and the nature of this announcement, this may be doable.

Sort of like the Time Magazine cover article of the new iMac when it was released.

So, perhaps we should focus on this a target for release? Just a thought...

[RLB]

There is a blurb in this months Rollingstone (pg 22) saying that the service should be out before the summer.

[james330i]

alright guys.....any new info on the new ipods?

I haven't been here in about 3 weeks, and i was ready to buy in Feb, and still without one..................argh...when are they coming out???

[Awimoway]

Probably just a 40 GB and maybe Rendezvous with your stereo.

[JGowan]

totally off topic, BUT --

I am so sick to death of seeing that D@M San Fran postcard every morning when I check the website for news... we're are probably doomed to see that some homepage for the next 2+ months until that conference (which I don't really care about 'cause I aint going) is over with.

One thing Apple needs to do is automate the front to be different everytime someone goes... switch between 4 or 5 items... anything would be better than that d@m postcard!!!!!!

[gunner17]

Creative is about to release the Jukebox Zen in a few days, infact the arrival date listed at a local website is 11 days. Do you think it might of any competition to Apple? Although Zen is only PC only, it is $330CDN cheaper than it's 20GB iPod couterpart.

Why is apple so tight-lipped over this matter, there's consumers waiting to buy their products, yet they insist on letting us shop somewhere else?

btw, Would rather want an iPod, but how long Apple?:( :( :( :( :(

[iJon]

Originally posted by gunner17
Creative is about to release the Jukebox Zen in a few days, infact the arrival date listed at a local website is 11 days. Do you think it might of any competition to Apple? Although Zen is only PC only, it is $330CDN cheaper than it's 20GB iPod couterpart.

Why is apple so tight-lipped over this matter, there's consumers waiting to buy their products, yet they insist on letting us shop somewhere else?

btw, Would rather want an iPod, but how long Apple?:( :( :( :( :(
zen has been out for a while now. its heavy and the interface sucks. nothing to get excited over. my pc gamer even said it doesnt compare with the ipod.

iJon

[d46799]

I'll pay to play with hi-fi mp3 files on the fly on my I......pod.

[GroundLoop]

ThinkSecret recently posted a new article:

April 10, 2003 - A re-designed Apple iPod in two new hard drive sizes with control buttons and a docking/charging station will be announced toward the end of April, sources have confirmed to Think Secret. The new models will be available in 15GB and 30GB sizes, as the 5GB and 20GB models will be discontinued. In addition, Apple's new music service is expected to be announced at the same time the new iPod's debut.

Not sure how much I like the artist's rendering of the new design. But, I will check it out anyways. Start saving your pennies.

Hickman

[rangerrick]

Mac Warehouse seems to be advertising iPods as bluetooth enabled smack dab in the middle of the magazine. Anyone heard about this? New to message boards-- sorry if this should be poseted elsewhere.