Apple's Music Service... This Month?

[MacRumors]

Apple's rumored music-download service, first mentioned here (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030226195649.shtml) is expected to be released this month on April 28th, according to AppleInsider (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=112)

Sources are reporting that the service will be built directly into iTunes, suggesting an anticipated update to Apple's digital jukebox software. This version of iTunes will permit users to purchase music on a per-song basis, allowing the user to preview 30-second streamed audio clips of selected songs. Purchasing songs will be as simple as clicking a button once having signed up for Apple's 1-Click purchasing, similar to how ordering prints is implemented in iPhoto.


Other updates expected are iTunes and iPod updates. Similar reports have been circulating over the past few months.

AppleInsider resurfaced under new management (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=105%20) in October 2002, but provided inaccurate information prior to MWSF (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/02/20030204064250.shtml).

[jouster]

I'm there....seems so much easier than crappy P2P apps....oh and it's legal too:D




[Edited for spelling]

[Kwyjibo]

wasn't the original date april 1? I hope this service is for real. Apple is well known for a tighht integration between user services and their software (.mac) so i think done right this servvice will be a hit. Plus mac users tend to be a bit mroe affluent judging by most studies...

[arn]

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
wasn't the original date april 1? I hope this service is for real. Apple is well known for a tighht integration between user services and their software (.mac) so i think done right this servvice will be a hit. Plus mac users tend to be a bit mroe affluent judging by most studies...

there was never a date attached to this.

arn

[mangoman]

Bring it on, Apple. Please!

[MrMacMan]

Hm... seems good to me, but well you know, execpt for the whole costing money thing.

It seems like a great idea. :D

[InstantCool]

Originally posted by Macrumors
...
As well, one quote from this report: "Sources have suggested that purchased songs may be downloaded in AAC format, upon which the user can 'rip' the selected track to an MP3 to allow it to be burned to a CD" makes little technical sense and casts some doubt on these details. [/B]

Could be talking about ripping it to MP3 inorder to make an MP3 CD. MP3 CDs are a somewhat standard format with lots of DVD players and Car audio supporting it. This would just be a way of addressing those concerns by users of this device. THerefore, I think it makes technical sense.

[arn]

Originally posted by InstantCool
Could be talking about ripping it to MP3 inorder to make an MP3 CD. MP3 CDs are a somewhat standard format with lots of DVD players and Car audio supporting it. This would just be a way of addressing those concerns by users of this device. THerefore, I think it makes technical sense.

MP4's should not be "ripped" into MP3's... transcoding from one format to another is not something that should happen. I doubt Apple will allow it.

As for converting to MP3's to allow it to be burned to a CD. This also makes no sense. an MP4->MP3 conversion would cause a fidelity loss. CD's are in a raw audio format... if iTunes can play MP4 AAC to the speaker, then it can burn that information to CD.

arn

[marcsiry]

I don't like getting music for free (not just the illegal aspect- also the hassle and the poor quality, cut off, bad ID3 tags, etc), but I also don't like buying an entire CD because I like one song.

There's also a lot of stuff that's no longer in circulation that I hope shows up- stuff that wouldn't make sense to re-release on CD but might work on a per-download basis.

[jimjiminyjim]

About time a quality, juicy, rumor came about. Yummmm!

Living in Canada means big taxes, and big taxes means big income tax returns, which means that i will almost certainly get an iPod, and then download songs, legally!! I like it.

[copperpipe]

This could be a huge windfall for Apple. I know that I will be buying all my music through Apple. How simple, efficient, flexible, and affordable is this? It will save everyone money, time, and people will get exactly what they are looking for. The music industry is big, (understatement of the year) and if Apple get's a slice out of that pie then we will see more good things for our favorite comuter maker! Hoo-ray!

[rickvanr]

Originally posted by jimjiminyjim
About time a quality, juicy, rumor came about. Yummmm!

Living in Canada means big taxes, and big taxes means big income tax returns, which means that i will almost certainly get an iPod, and then download songs, legally!! I like it.

Amen.

[sanford]

So long as it's pay-per-song and not subscription PLUS pay-per-song.

[gopher]

One click needs to be improved. I don't want to put my credit card number online anywhere. As it is, I have to in order to do any one-click purchasing. Even when I qualified for free one-click photos with my .Mac membership. Due to its insecurity I never was able to take advantage of it.

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by sanford
So long as it's pay-per-song and not subscription PLUS pay-per-song.

I'd take pay-per-song OR subscription, preferably the former, but either one would be fine. But you are right-not both!

I have a question; will Apple make any money off of this directly? The more songs we buy.....does that translate straight into Apple's bottom line?

[balliet]

Originally posted by gopher
One click needs to be improved. I don't want to put my credit card number online anywhere.
If you are really paranoid, some credit card companies have a service where they issue you a temporary credit card number good for one purchase only. American Express calls it "private payments". Using something like this would allow you to use 1-click without having to worry about your "real" credit card number being stored anywhere.

That being said, assuming you bought your computer from apple, that have (well, they probably don't, but they could) your credit card number already, so what are you worried about?

[iconrad]

I Apple's download program works, but I really like to listen to CD quality music and when I listen to MP3's I can tell there is a decreased quality in the sound. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the audio quality of an MP4 and AAC compared to MP3 and full audio CD's?

[greenstork]

Legality issues aside. I don't know anyone who has had a problem finding the songs that they want over a peer-to-peer network like Acquisition or Limewire. I'm not sure I understand the posts about these programs not being sufficient.

If all the gripes are about crappy ID3 tags, I just don't follow. As for sound quality, programs like Acquisition allow you to sort the selections by bitrate (ensuring high quality). If you get a bad song, there are usually 35 other copies you can try.

AAC would be the only reason I could see for justifying any expense for a song otherwise I think the majority people will overlook the ethical dilemma of downloading free music.

Just my two cents.

[Steamboatwillie]

In the new version of iTunes (presumed to be released with the music service launch) does anyone know if they might be including the ability to use LAME as an optional encoder?

[unc32]

why are you worried about your credit card. Most companies are very worried about credit card fraud so they try to be secure. How bad would it be for apple if their information was compromised. Just get a credit card that is insured against fraud and only use it for online purchases. That way it is easy to tell if fraud has occured and if so you have no liability. Seems like a no brainer to me.

[locovaca]

My only question is this: What happens if you loose your hard drive or need to reinstall OS X and reformat? Are they going to keep track of what songs you download, or will you be able to back stuff up? If you do back stuff up, do they have some sort of license associated with the file? How do they associate the file with your computer? I know there's been some speculation on it, but for me this would really make or break this. Let's just assume that they have some sort of authentication with the serial number on your computer- does that mean you can't listen to the file on another computer that you own (say between a PM and a PB)?

Questions, questions...

[bryanc]

Originally posted by greenstork
Legality issues aside. I don't know anyone who has had a problem finding the songs that they want over a peer-to-peer network like Acquisition or Limewire. I'm not sure I understand the posts about these programs not being sufficient.

Like the massive dominance Wintel has on the desktop, the vast majority of people are downloading pop music from the net, and have no difficulty finding the latest Britney Spears product. However, for those of use with more esoteric tastes, LimeWire and other P2P file sharing systems are not satisfactory.

I hope Apple recognizes this, and provides as large an array of classical, jazz and alternative music as possible. Given the plethora of pop music available 'for free' via P2P, and the fact that classical music afficionados are more inclined (and generally more able) to pay for good recordings, I think this is a market Apple may be able to make money from.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by balliet
That being said, assuming you bought your computer from apple, that have (well, they probably don't, but they could) your credit card number already, so what are you worried about?

Well, there is a pretty large difference between Apple having had your credit card number going into their billing system (designed as a one-way process as far as the Internet is concerned) and having it sitting on a server which is intentionally exposed to the Internet 24/7 and designed to dispense that information to those who ask.

That having been said, I personally am gutsy enough to both pay for stuff online with my credit card and to have my number on Apple's servers (and a few others ...) On the other hand, I regularly check my card purchases online, and every time I use my card on something more than a few hundred bucks online I get a call from my bank making sure it was me ...

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by iconrad
I Apple's download program works, but I really like to listen to CD quality music and when I listen to MP3's I can tell there is a decreased quality in the sound. I was wondering if anyone could tell me what the audio quality of an MP4 and AAC compared to MP3 and full audio CD's?

It's all about the bitrate. If your MP3's don't sound "right" to you, then rip them at a higher bitrate.

AAC has two benefits:

1) at the same bitrate (and, thus, nearly-identical file size), it will yeild higher quality than MP3; the other way of saying this is that the same quality of sound may be had at a significantly lower bitrate, and thus smaller file.

2) the overall fidelity is more even across the spectrum than with MP3. Thus, where MP3 largely filters out the highs and deep bass, AAC reproduces them. Thus, even at two bitrates where AAC and MP3 have the "same" general quality, you will have better range coming out of the AAC file.

Personally, I can stand MP3s in most cases at 160kbps, am 99% fooled at 192kbps, and on the rare case where 192 isn't enough, 256kbps is indistinguishable to CD audio to me. But, every ear is different.

You may (likely will) get a bunch of people telling you that with better stereo equipment lower-bitrate MP3s sound just as good as CDs ... which is of course wrong. Unless your stereo equipment is smoothing over your audio (which to me would be the sign of low-quality equipment, not high-quality equipment), the more fidelity your equipment has the more accurately it will produce the artifacts left from MP3 encoding.

[mymemory]

That remind me the "one song sell one CD".

I am one of thouse that just enjoy the free word. Now, I rather get a song for a dollar or something than spend 4 to 8 hours looking for it in the net.

I like single versions a lot, I hope the service carry everything, not just shi**y top 40 stuff. I like to help the industry but if the service please me.

Lets see the price. Count me in.

[jch200]

hey, does anybody know about the issue of Apple not being allowed to make money off the recording industry? The whole Apple Beatles recording law suit when Apple computers got started. Apple computer got sued for using the name Apple, and they Apple Records (the Beatles label) made them agree that as long as they never make money off the recording industry then they could use the name.

yeah, I know, I'm a little foggy on the story, but does anyone know anything about it? This could be the answer to some of the posts here about whether Apple would make money on this service. Maybe they're not going to. They might just be satisfied with dominating the software and ipod hardware niche.

[centauratlas]

>Other updates expected are iTunes and iPod updates.<

Are they expected at the same time (e.g. just under 4 weeks from now)? Seems like a long time for the iPod updates given the 5GB is completely unavailable.

I need the 40GB...out of space...(or if they get around to incorporating the 60GB drive in it eventually...)

[iconrad]

Originally posted by jettredmont
It's all about the bitrate. If your MP3's don't sound "right" to you, then rip them at a higher bitrate.

AAC has two benefits:

1) at the same bitrate (and, thus, nearly-identical file size), it will yeild higher quality than MP3; the other way of saying this is that the same quality of sound may be had at a significantly lower bitrate, and thus smaller file.

2) the overall fidelity is more even across the spectrum than with MP3. Thus, where MP3 largely filters out the highs and deep bass, AAC reproduces them. Thus, even at two bitrates where AAC and MP3 have the "same" general quality, you will have better range coming out of the AAC file.

Personally, I can stand MP3s in most cases at 160kbps, am 99% fooled at 192kbps, and on the rare case where 192 isn't enough, 256kbps is indistinguishable to CD audio to me. But, every ear is different.

You may (likely will) get a bunch of people telling you that with better stereo equipment lower-bitrate MP3s sound just as good as CDs ... which is of course wrong. Unless your stereo equipment is smoothing over your audio (which to me would be the sign of low-quality equipment, not high-quality equipment), the more fidelity your equipment has the more accurately it will produce the artifacts left from MP3 encoding.

Thank You. This information is very helpful, and now I cant wait for the new apple service to come. The highs and base are what I really miss in MP3. I usually don't rip my CD's at
bit-rates above 160kbps because of the size of the file, rather limited on my disc space.

As for the law suite, I think apple would have been sued already if it is going to happen. Apple has already won a Technical Grammy (http://www.apple.com/hotnews/articles/2002/03/grammyaward/) for its "...contributions to the music industry and recording field." So it would seem to me that they are already involved in the recording industry and still using the Apple name.

[j33pd0g]

Originally posted by sanford
So long as it's pay-per-song and not subscription PLUS pay-per-song.

Oh that would bite!

[m3djack]

I think the reason the article references 'ripping' to mp3 is that AAC supports some form of Digital Rights Management, does it not? Wouldn't an AAC file be able to flag itself as not being burnable to some extent?

I believe the author of the report may have been suggesting this. I admittedly do not know the technical details about it either, but think about it. The big five aren't going to back a service that is DRM free. They will want to control how you distribute the music. I bet the source was a bit confused about it.

[j33pd0g]

Originally posted by j33pd0g
Oh that would bite!

Unless of course you can just add the new service over to your .Mac account.

Speaking of subcriptions: Renewal is due soon... I wonder if there will be a lower rate for those of us who have already subscribed?

[jch200]

As for the law suite, I think apple would have been sued already if it is going to happen. Apple has already won a Technical Grammy for its "...contributions to the music industry and recording field." So it would seem to me that they are already involved in the recording industry and still using the Apple name.


no, I'm talking about the actual sales of song recordings. That's what they don't (or didn't) have the right to do.

[IndyGopher]

<rant>Every time this subject comes up, people want to know what happens if they have a hard drive crash... well, what SHOULD happen? You should restore from your current backup. Be it tape, an external hard drive, whatever... and if you don't HAVE a backup? Just whose fault is THAT? Why should they have to babysit you and let you download it again? Take some responsibility and back up your own data. At least 3 or 4 times a week I have someone come running into the shop frantic about either a machine or its data. My personal favorites are the ones that start with "This is the [n]th time this has happened!" Doesn't anyone make backups anymore?? </rant>

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by arn
As for converting to MP3's to allow it to be burned to a CD. This also makes no sense. an MP4->MP3 conversion would cause a fidelity loss. CD's are in a raw audio format... if iTunes can play MP4 AAC to the speaker, then it can burn that information to CD.


Yes...however, there is a seperate MP3 CD format, that uses the MP3 format, and burns them onto CDs. The advatantage of MP3-CD is that there are CD players that recognize the MP3-CD format, thus making it entirely plausible that you could convert an MP4 to MP3 to burn onto a MP3 CD.

[iconrad]

Originally posted by jch200
no, I'm talking about the actual sales of song recordings. That's what they don't (or didn't) have the right to do.

Sorry, I guess I didn't understand what you meant.

Dose any one know wether or not Sony Music signed on yet, as well what are the 5 major record labels who have signed on. If we knew this then I think it would be easier to know what kind of music will be available.

[jimjiminyjim]

Originally posted by bryanc
...for those of use with more esoteric tastes, LimeWire and other P2P file sharing systems are not satisfactory.

I hope Apple recognizes this, and provides as large an array of classical, jazz and alternative music as possible....

My sentiments exactly.

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jch200
hey, does anybody know about the issue of Apple not being allowed to make money off the recording industry? The whole Apple Beatles recording law suit when Apple computers got started. Apple computer got sued for using the name Apple, and they Apple Records (the Beatles label) made them agree that as long as they never make money off the recording industry then they could use the name.

yeah, I know, I'm a little foggy on the story, but does anyone know anything about it? This could be the answer to some of the posts here about whether Apple would make money on this service. Maybe they're not going to. They might just be satisfied with dominating the software and ipod hardware niche.

OK, here's the story:

1. Apple Computer is founded.
2. Apple Records: "Hey! You can't be Apple! We're Apple!"
3. Apple Computer: "Ptaugh!"
4. Apple Records: "As long as you stay out of the recording business."

Part II:

1. Apple Computer releases a microphone for the Macintosh SE (IIRC).
2. Apple Records: "Hey! That's recording!"
3. Apple Computer: "Ptaugh!"

And that's the story so far.

[locovaca]

Originally posted by IndyGopher
<rant>Every time this subject comes up, people want to know what happens if they have a hard drive crash... well, what SHOULD happen? You should restore from your current backup. Be it tape, an external hard drive, whatever... and if you don't HAVE a backup? Just whose fault is THAT? Why should they have to babysit you and let you download it again? Take some responsibility and back up your own data. At least 3 or 4 times a week I have someone come running into the shop frantic about either a machine or its data. My personal favorites are the ones that start with "This is the [n]th time this has happened!" Doesn't anyone make backups anymore?? </rant>

If this is the stance that they take, they won't get many people, especially if you can't make physical back ups (burns), then you are SOL. With cd's you have a physical backup, and in the event that something catastrophic does happen you can always re-rip.

[nuckinfutz]

That'll pretty much guarantee the most of the music available will be the same ole Dreck being pushed by the Majors. The success of this service will hinge on the amount of Independents Apple can sign up. P2P is often used to find new artists that you would not normally know about since Clear Channel loves to push only the Dreck from the Majors.

[BillyShears]

Originally posted by gopher
One click needs to be improved. I don't want to put my credit card number online anywhere. As it is, I have to in order to do any one-click purchasing. Even when I qualified for free one-click photos with my .Mac membership. Due to its insecurity I never was able to take advantage of it.

Since it is an app run on OS X, it most likely makes use of the keychain, thus sending the data over the net encrypted, but Apple never has your credit card number, it is stored on your computer.

Just a guess, though, I could be wrong. It may be easier for Apple to keep track of good/bad credit card numbers if they have them on their servers...

[requies]

Originally posted by greenstork
Legality issues aside. I don't know anyone who has had a problem finding the songs that they want over a peer-to-peer network like Acquisition or Limewire. I'm not sure I understand the posts about these programs not being sufficient.

If all the gripes are about crappy ID3 tags, I just don't follow. As for sound quality, programs like Acquisition allow you to sort the selections by bitrate (ensuring high quality). If you get a bad song, there are usually 35 other copies you can try.

AAC would be the only reason I could see for justifying any expense for a song otherwise I think the majority people will overlook the ethical dilemma of downloading free music.

Just my two cents.

hi! my name is ken. now you know somebody who can't find what they want on current p2p networks. come on, man. you live in seattle. support some indie music. a lot of the music i like isn't even particularly obscure and it is very hard if not impossible to find on those networks. and if there aren't 35 copies to choose from then if you do find one chances are it's crappy.

whatever. i think it's a good idea and i think the numbers will show it. we'll see! :)

[IndyGopher]

Originally posted by locovaca
If this is the stance that they take, they won't get many people, especially if you can't make physical back ups (burns), then you are SOL. With cd's you have a physical backup, and in the event that something catastrophic does happen you can always re-rip.
It's data on your computer. What would stop you from making a backup of it? I agree that being able to make MP3 or audio CD's would be the ideal solution, but I can't imagine the situation in which you would be unable to make a normal backup of your drive.

[Mr T]

I don't want itunes with a built in music subscription service as I don't need this so called fature. I guess it's a better alternative than having it incorperated into the OS which would totally suck. When was the last time Apple put out a product for a reasonable price?


There is no way they will have reasonable prices for music downloads and have liberal fair use standards. I wish Apple would get out of the internet and music business and just stick to making hardware and software. Hopefully, most people will not renew their Mac subscriptions and Apple will get the message. People want value for their money and subscription services are not consumer freindly

[locovaca]

Originally posted by IndyGopher
It's data on your computer. What would stop you from making a backup of it? I agree that being able to make MP3 or audio CD's would be the ideal solution, but I can't imagine the situation in which you would be unable to make a normal backup of your drive.

Just because you physically have the songs doesn't mean that you can just play them back. Nobody knows how Apple is going to work to avoid piracy with a system like this. There could be all sorts of certificates, keys, etc. that are hidden around OS X and that could be lost in the event of a failure. While Apple isn't Microsoft, but I can't see how they'd be able to do this without some sort of similar protection found in WMA (where if it's not played on the computer that ripped it and if you don't "backup" your licenses then you can't play it). Because while

Apple != Microsoft,

RIAA's idea of distributing music != Apple's idea of distributing music

Nobody knows what kind of contract Apple would have to get into to provide a service like this, provided they are providing big names with this service (and for it to succeed, I suspect they would need to). Voluntarily cooperating with the RIAA has proven to be disatrous for users (WMA, Palladium, DMCA, etc.), and I can't see them cutting Apple any slack, especially with Apple's consumer orientated stance the past few years with regards to digital media.

My fear is that Apple will have to practically sell it's soul to provide a service like this. Everyone wants this to be a lightening fast, high quality Gnutella, myself including. At some point you have to realize that some forces in this country will never allow that to occur with their knowledge, especially to someone as big as Apple.

[paulc]

My issue is that at a buck a song, that's just about the same cost as a song on a CD. If they think I'm now going to pay a buck for something that is decidedly NOT the quality of a CD, they need to think harder.

Far as I'm concerned, I'd only pay for a full fidelity AFF. And be able to rip it into whatever format my portable player/computer likes to use. And be able to re-rip it into a "better" compressed format; as you know, these DO come along every now and then.

That being said, I'd be willing to bet you that this "service" is going to be all about Britney, XXXtina, the Backhoe Boyz, essentially all the "big" sellers. I would doubt they'd have a classical section or a jazz section. This is going to be mainstream stuff.

[requies]

Originally posted by paulc
My issue is that at a buck a song, that's just about the same cost as a song on a CD. If they think I'm now going to pay a buck for something that is decidedly NOT the quality of a CD, they need to think harder.

Far as I'm concerned, I'd only pay for a full fidelity AFF. And be able to rip it into whatever format my portable player/computer likes to use. And be able to re-rip it into a "better" compressed format; as you know, these DO come along every now and then.

That being said, I'd be willing to bet you that this "service" is going to be all about Britney, XXXtina, the Backhoe Boyz, essentially all the "big" sellers. I would doubt they'd have a classical section or a jazz section. This is going to be mainstream stuff.


it's gotta at least have joni mitchell. steve wouldn't approve it otherwise.

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
OK, here's the story:

1. Apple Computer is founded.
2. Apple Records: "Hey! You can't be Apple! We're Apple!"
3. Apple Computer: "Ptaugh!"
4. Apple Records: "As long as you stay out of the recording business."

Part II:

1. Apple Computer releases a microphone for the Macintosh SE (IIRC).
2. Apple Records: "Hey! That's recording!"
3. Apple Computer: "Ptaugh!"

And that's the story so far.

ptaugh

PRONUNCIATION: ta'

DEFINITION: Persuant to Federal Syllabication Commission advisory 17J0445-9/B "ptaugh" and its inflected forms "ptaughed", "ptaughing", and "ptaughs" are classified top secret interjections to be used with utmost care and only be federally authorized agencies. Its public definition is hereby revoked 17 Nov 2002.

ETYMOLOGY: Believed to be of obscure Macedonian origin, Alexander the Great used the expression before decimating countries for their boys and olive oil.

[nagromme]

Buying as AAC makes sense. Best quality per file size, and offers different compression levels like MP3 does.

Converting that AAC to MP3 also makes sense--IF you have an MP3 player that can't handle AAC. I suspect the iPod will handle AAC in future, but many other brands won't. iTunes isn't just meant for iPod owners.

Likewise, converting the AAC to a music CD makes sense too--iTunes is meant for people who still use CDs as well!

There's certainly reason to question the report until it coms true, but that last AC->MP3 statement doesn't seem like it adds any additional doubt.

[nichrome]

I agree with the previous post. arn, with all due respect, it doesn't sound like you thought the thing through before labeling AInsider's claim as suspect.

Firstly, converting AAC to MP3 is not at all odd, since most CD players that support MP3 CDs do not support AAC CDs; and none of the current portable MP3 players support AAC.

Secondly, AAC->MP3 does not lower the quality, it just makes the file bigger (since the MP3's bitrate is higher).

[Vroem]

Someone, explain to me what the benefit of DRM is. The way I see it: if you can play it on your computer, then you can rip off the DRM. Why would apple ever use such a stupid tecnology? Especially when it makes things more complicated?

[arn]

Originally posted by nichrome
I agree with the previous post. arn, with all due respect, it doesn't sound like you thought the thing through before labeling AInsider's claim as suspect.

Firstly, converting AAC to MP3 is not at all odd, since most CD players that support MP3 CDs do not support AAC CDs; and none of the current portable MP3 players support AAC.


Perhaps...

As for the quality reduction... my point is going from one lossy format to another is not recommended. It's possible people may need/want MP3 CD's... but I still have my doubts about this report due to this detail.

I've removed the reference from the news-item as some do feel it is possible.

arn

[DGFan]

Originally posted by arn
MP4's should not be "ripped" into MP3's... transcoding from one format to another is not something that should happen. I doubt Apple will allow it.

As for converting to MP3's to allow it to be burned to a CD. This also makes no sense. an MP4->MP3 conversion would cause a fidelity loss. CD's are in a raw audio format... if iTunes can play MP4 AAC to the speaker, then it can burn that information to CD.

arn

No...no...not audio CD's but MP3 CD's (you know, a data CD filled with MP3 files that can be played by many CD players).

Besides, disallowing ripping directly to MP3 isn't exactly going to prevent public posting of these files. All someone would have to do is burn it to an audio CD and then rip it from there. And it only takes one person to do that right?

Personally, I wouldn't use the service if it didn't allow me to rip directly to MP3. And the limitation on file use had better be based on some kind of account (like my .Mac account but probably not limited to that) so I can listen to the same purchased song on multiple computers. Otherwise it's useless.

[DGFan]

Originally posted by locovaca
My only question is this: What happens if you loose your hard drive or need to reinstall OS X and reformat? Are they going to keep track of what songs you download, or will you be able to back stuff up? If you do back stuff up, do they have some sort of license associated with the file? How do they associate the file with your computer? I know there's been some speculation on it, but for me this would really make or break this. Let's just assume that they have some sort of authentication with the serial number on your computer- does that mean you can't listen to the file on another computer that you own (say between a PM and a PB)?

Questions, questions...

If it's a Microsoftian "product activation" type situation where it is linked to my computer I won't bite. It'll have to be linked to an account. No way would I spend money on music that could only be played on one computer. At that point it's easier to just go find it and download it.

Also, there sure as heck better be a way to preview music. Prior to the RIAA getting nasty I usually downloaded music to "try before I buy". Apple would have to offer the same. Otherwise I'd end up in the same boat as before - spending money on songs that suck.

[xDANx]

for me to get at all excited about this a number of things have to somehow all come together:

1) the songs should be linked to an account not a computer...i'm wary of this whole DRM thing making the service extrememly restrictive in ways unproportional to questions of property rights...i hope that apple is too.

2) that account should not be .mac but something separate...if apple uses this as a way to encourage .mac subscriptions i will be very uninimpressed.

3) the account should be free...is in, not subscription based

4) the fees involved shouldn't be on a per song basis, but on some kind of '$/unit of time' setup...i can't see people being willing to pay the same amount for a 20 minute long classical song and a 1 1/2 minute long punk song (and yes, people listen to both...!) as another example...a typical grindcore* album has about 25-30 songs that are all about 42 seconds long...that makes for a very expensive album on a per song basis.

5) the service has to reach out to all sorts of indie labels...if it's just the same old top 40 ****e then why not just use limewire or acquisition?

to be honest, i'd be much more excited about hearing that an OS X version of Soulseek is finally fully functional. i have much more faith in being able to find the music i'm interested in with that network than this rumored music service.

[* - grindcore is extremely fast, noisy metal with drumming that sounds almost inhumanly fast and usually incredibly high pitched screaming vocals or super low pitched guttural vocals....just in case anyone didn't know what i was referring to.]

[Vroem]

Originally posted by arn
Perhaps...

As for the quality reduction... my point is going from one lossy format to another is not recommended.

Indeed. And I think Apple would rather make all its software mpeg-4/aac compatible than providing a "downcoding" option to the older mpeg-1/layer III format.

[Foxer]

I for one do hope they tie it .Mac - I'll feel like I'm getting something other than an e-mail address and a nice but pointless anti-virus program for my money.

It goes without saying that many of us hope that the catalogue is broader than your average mall music store. The only songs I'm dying to download are the ones I never can find on Limewire.

Fees? For some reason I suspect that they'll follow the model that my cellphone uses for downloading ring-tones. Something like $2 for one, $10 for 6 $20 for 20, etc. and you pay in advance. A flat fee for unlimited downloads, I think, would be unlikely because of the risk (I should say, the inevitabiity) that some idiot will slowly download the entire catalogue. At best, there will be a subscription service giving you unlimited downloads for a specific period, but even then that would be costly.

However it works out, I want it to get here - if only for iTunes 4 and the new iPods!

[xDANx]

Originally posted by Foxer
I for one do hope they tie it .Mac - I'll feel like I'm getting something other than an e-mail address and a nice but pointless anti-virus program for my money.

that's exactly why i don't want it tied to .mac...i don't feel that the current list of services warrants the yearly fee that apple levies, and adding this possible music service, which has the potential to be useless to me in so many ways, doesn't really sweeten the deal that much. if they do go the .mac route they better have a way for people to see what they'd be getting without having to sign up for a .mac account. if it turns out to be a good service then the combination of e-mail, idisk, and music service could conceivably sway me. i'm just worried that apple will announce the new music service and tell everyone, 'sign up for a .mac account to try it out.' doing that also means that they have no intention of targeting PC users, which seems like a waste if they're creaing a service that has no inherent need to be mac only.

[twelve]

illegal file sharing has done more for the popularity of the internet then any other activity except email. what apple should do is release a os x version of soulseek so that apple will become more popular.

[m3djack]

Originally posted by twelve
illegal file sharing has done more for the popularity of the internet then any other activity except email. what apple should do is release a os x version of soulseek so that apple will become more popular.

That's seriously the densest comment I have heard this week.

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by paulc
That being said, I'd be willing to bet you that this "service" is going to be all about Britney, XXXtina, the Backhoe Boyz, essentially all the "big" sellers. I would doubt they'd have a classical section or a jazz section. This is going to be mainstream stuff.

I seriously doubt that this service would be all mainstream only. Think about it, the cost of acquiring and storing new music is small compared to profit potential. All you have to do is look at the costs. 200GB HD is $300, drop the machine with it onto the network and post the new songs available. At $1 a pop it would probaby only take about 1000 downloads to pay for the new drive - any 1000 downloads. Yet the new drive could easily hold over 10 times that many songs, even with multiple quality variants. And the additional drive costs them hardly anything in the long run, since they will likely only pay licensing/royalty on sold tracks.

As for .Mac, I can see this as a 'free' service if you own .Mac and a small (<$10) subscription fee if you don't. The fee lets you browse and stream tracks before you buy. Prolly a limited try before you buy intro period too (only streams 30 seconds or something).

It we see this, it could be very cool

[locovaca]

Originally posted by Rincewind42
I seriously doubt that this service would be all mainstream only. Think about it, the cost of acquiring and storing new music is small compared to profit potential. All you have to do is look at the costs. 200GB HD is $300, drop the machine with it onto the network and post the new songs available. At $1 a pop it would probaby only take about 1000 downloads to pay for the new drive - any 1000 downloads. Yet the new drive could easily hold over 10 times that many songs, even with multiple quality variants. And the additional drive costs them hardly anything in the long run, since they will likely only pay licensing/royalty on sold tracks.

As for .Mac, I can see this as a 'free' service if you own .Mac and a small (<$10) subscription fee if you don't. The fee lets you browse and stream tracks before you buy. Prolly a limited try before you buy intro period too (only streams 30 seconds or something).

It we see this, it could be very cool

Storage, IMHO, will not be an issue. What will be is bandwidth. Bandwidth isn't cheap. Additionally, there will be many machines, and many hard drives with the same data on it, because you can't get 5000 streams from one hard drive.

It may sound like simple economics in practice, but in reality there are a lot of factors that go into it. Combined with the fact that the largest revenue stream IS pop music/ top 40, you have the conclusion that they'll have to include that. Additionally they may have other genres, but I guarantee you that storage is not the primary cost here- bandwidth is.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by locovaca
[Regarding why back catalogue items wouldn't be offered]

Storage, IMHO, will not be an issue. What will be is bandwidth. Bandwidth isn't cheap. Additionally, there will be many machines, and many hard drives with the same data on it, because you can't get 5000 streams from one hard drive.


Um, nope.

Bandwidth charges are a per-download charge, and I can guarantee you that whatever Apple sells each download at, the bandwidth charges will be covered. Downloading Britney Spear's latest schmaltz will not cost Apple any less bandwidth than downloading an old BB King cut. Granted, you then get into old 22-minute Floyd cuts and the paradigm might shift, but in general ...

The only place where selection affects bandwidth is in the "catalogue" itself, were Apple silly enough to force all users to periodically download the entire list of all music available (as opposed to a search-based or categorized system with differentials being downloaded).

Having a wider selection of available content affects storage, pure and simple. More back-catalogue offered, you need more space to hold your masters.

As for duplicating selections on multiple disks: I would suspect that Apple would use a caching system which would place the "popular" selections on all disks while 90%+ of the catalogue remains on a centralized server or two. Of course, this is assuming that the mass of downloads are from a relatively small portion of the total catalogue, and that one can thus reasonably predict which songs will get the majority of requests.

[jettredmont]

I missed the more salient point regarding back catalogue items: licensing.

The killer for all to-date music services is that they haven't been able to round up the licenses for all those wonderful 20-year-old tracks for electronic distribution.

That, IMHO, is going to continue to be the determining factor regarding breadth of selection. Of course, Apple would love to be able to sell every song ever recorded on their service, and would be more than willing to attach a price to every possible item. However, sometimes you just can't get licenses in order. There's a huge stockpile of old songs that just can't be re-released because licenses can't be had for them!

On the other hand, more likely than not, if you have seen the track in stores or in TimeLife collections on TV, licensing can be arranged for it, and I would hope that Apple will put the effort in place to license these less-popular but highly-desired items as well as the usual cattle feed.

[Awimoway]

I'm confused...

The first time MacRumors posted about a possible music sharing program, everyone was saying that if it were part of .mac, they would finally buy in. Now everyone's decrying the possibility. What changed? Maybe it's the rumor that it will cost money on top of a .mac membership. While I think they would have to charge something to keep people from downloading every song ever published for just $70 (.mac discount has been extended), it ought to be really cheap--like $.15 per song--for .mac members.

Anyway, Apple is very committed to .mac. It's failure is due to its price, thus far. They would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't make the music service a major benfit of being a member. OTOH, some of their other services--photo album printing, for example--do not have all that great of a discount for .mac members, so maybe this will be more of the same. :rolleyes:

[Rincewind42]

Originally posted by Awimoway
The first time MacRumors posted about a possible music sharing program, everyone was saying that if it were part of .mac, they would finally buy in. Now everyone's decrying the possibility. What changed?

I think it's just different people complaining :). Personally, I'm not too worried about it. I get the feeling that if Apple does associate it with .Mac, then .Mac people will get some goody because they are .Mac subscribers and everyone else will have to fend for themselves. But I doubt that the services would be .Mac only.

Anyway, Apple is very committed to .mac. It's failure is due to its price, thus far. They would be shooting themselves in the foot if they didn't make the music service a major benfit of being a member.

It would definately be nice if they gave .Mac users some bonus with this service, and I think they will. But as for it being a failure, I think you have to look at it from Apple's point of view. In that view 200k * $100/yr >> 1.1m * $0. One pays for the service and the other doesn't :D.

[Qball]

Originally posted by IndyGopher
<rant>Every time this subject comes up, people want to know what happens if they have a hard drive crash... well, what SHOULD happen? You should restore from your current backup. Be it tape, an external hard drive, whatever... and if you don't HAVE a backup? Just whose fault is THAT? Why should they have to babysit you and let you download it again? Take some responsibility and back up your own data. At least 3 or 4 times a week I have someone come running into the shop frantic about either a machine or its data. My personal favorites are the ones that start with "This is the [n]th time this has happened!" Doesn't anyone make backups anymore?? </rant>

Well put. Hard drive failure is not a matter of "if," but "when."

[RLB]

Looprumors is reporting that the music service may be released within 3 weeks.

Link (http://www.looprumors.com)

[centauratlas]

>Well put. Hard drive failure is not a matter of "if," but "when."<

I agree. As someone who has been using Apple's since the Apple ][, it is definitely going to happen, it is just a matter of time.

This is yet another area where Apple has a chance to shine.

Apple needs a program like "iBackup" or "iData" or something like that, making backups as easy as iPhoto and iMovie make photo's and movies. That is the easy answer as to "why people don't backup their data"...they don't know how to do it simply and easily.

[Awimoway]

You mean like this?

http://www.mac.com/1/iTour/tour_backup.html

[comrade]

Originally posted by requies
hi! my name is ken. now you know somebody who can't find what they want on current p2p networks. come on, man. you live in seattle. support some indie music. a lot of the music i like isn't even particularly obscure and it is very hard if not impossible to find on those networks. and if there aren't 35 copies to choose from then if you do find one chances are it's crappy.

whatever. i think it's a good idea and i think the numbers will show it. we'll see! :)

irc people....irc....