Apple's Music Service - April 28th?

[MacRumors]

This Latest (http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-apple17apr17,1,2097077.story?coll=la%2Dhome%2Dtodays%2Dtimes) LA Times story (registration required) discusses Steve Jobs' statement denying any current bid on Universal's Music division.

The article also confirms a date for the launch of the service:

If Jobs decides to make a formal bid, he is unlikely to do so until after Apple launches its online music delivery service April 28, sources said. Apple's digital downloading service would feature songs from all five major record companies.



The date of April 28th, 2003 was first mentioned by AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=112), earlier this month.

[MrMacMan]

Sneaky steve is... ;)

[lazyrighteye]

So do folks (Steve) think this will be THE way music is distributed?

[Computer_Phreak]

wow... well i hope this will be another ipod-like success... speaking of which, what about the ipods?
:confused:

[sparks9]

I hope this holds true... not that i want to use it, but it's cool-)

[maxterpiece]

11 days till we can figure out what's really going on. Maybe.

[freundt]

but that's a monday. :p

[dstorey]

Hopefully new iPods with recording feature and ability to act as a host to dl and preview pics from a digital cam will come out at the same time....is the 28th a tues? ;) Can't wait to see what innovations wil be in the music service....it will give me something intresting to do browsing through the songs while i'm bored looking for a job...

[shadowfax]

the 28th is a Monday... doesn't the 29th seem more likely? then again, the new FCP was released on a Sunday, so who knows.

[TylerL]

Originally posted by Shadowfax
the 28th is a Monday... doesn't the 29th seem more likely? then again, the new FCP was released on a Sunday, so who knows. "Released" and "announced" are two seperate things.
In the past, new products with "immediate availability" were announced on Tuesdays to allow retail outlets either some warning time or allow shipments to reach stores very close to the release date (FedEx and UPS usually don't deliver on Sunday)
This music service would be a little more than just a product introduction, so the actual introduction date is all up to those crazy Cupertino people (or just Steve).

[Snowster]

Its funny to watch people talking about when such a service would be released and at the same time people are forgetting to ask why such a service would be started in the first place.

Do we really need/want Apple to serve downloadable music for a fee? I mean we have Amazon for books for example. Nobody expects Apple to start selling books. Why do we expect/hope that Apple would start this online music service, and will it really be any good to Apple?

- Snowster

[JPGR_Fan]

Actually, Apple does sell books at their store.

Music fans just hope somebody can come up with the right formula that will solve the problems now faced by consumers, such as high prices, threat of CD copy protection, DRM on other online services. Nobody else has it figured out, many online services are not Mac friendly and the iPod tiein makes us all hopeful that Apple can be successful.

[Performfreak]

I hope that when this music service is released (if at all) it offers better pricing than $1.00 a song. That's robbery in my book! I know some other people don't feel the same way, but when emusic.com charges a flat fee of 9.95 per month (or 14.95 a month depending on which package you buy) for unlimited downloads... come on, which service would you choose? They also offer 50 free downloads just to try out the service! I don't want to turn this into an advertisement for emusic, but it's definitely the better value and the better selection to me. I wouldn't pay $1.00 a download, even if it is to my favorite cooperation in the world, if there's a better service available. Emusic has a much more eclectic grouping of music in my opinion than pressplay (the current Vivendi service) and are much cheaper if you download a good amount of tunes.

I just don't want this to turn into the failure that could hurt apple, possibly fatally. If they're going to go through with this venture, they better do it right.

[jhershauer]

Originally posted by Performfreak
I hope that when this music service is released (if at all) it offers better pricing than $1.00 a song. That's robbery in my book! I know some other people don't feel the same way, but when emusic.com charges a flat fee of 9.95 per month (or 14.95 a month depending on which package you buy) for unlimited downloads... come on, which service would you choose?
I'd choose the one with all 5 major labels signed on. ;)

[Performfreak]

yeah... I'm not a big fan of major labels

most of the time they're just out to make money, and the music often reflects that. I think people need to expand their tastes beyond the mainstream, but once again, just my opinion. Let the masses have what they want I suppose

[dstorey]

Originally posted by jhershauer
I'd choose the one with all 5 major labels signed on. ;)

I'm one of thrm people that likes to have the case and notes etc so I probably wouldnt buy any unless it was an artist I didn't like enough to collect their album or only liked a certain song (plus cd's are collectable and have resale value, such as old beatles records for instance, but a music download will never be like that) However if I dis chose one it'd be the one with the best selection of indie label's. So me most the best stuff are coming out on small label's by more underground bands instead of a lot of the mass market junk thats on most of the majors. Anyone heard anything about indies signing up for this service. I guess we won't know till its released. I guess the other services have a good selection of indies but I'm not sure as I never check them.

[Perceptes]

Once again, the music service sounds interesting, but I really don't care as long as new iPods come along with it. :)

[Windowlicker]

Originally posted by Performfreak
Let the masses have what they want I suppose

More likely let the masses have what they're made to want.

I really hope this service will have a good selection of soundtracks as I need them and some of them are very hard to find. This would make the process easy. ..Though I need them to be editable. if they're say 160-192kbps AAC, I think it'd kick ass. I don't exactly know how small the files are compared to mp3, but I think something like this could pretty much match a 224-256kbps mp3. am I right or wrong?

[MetallicPenguin]

Metallica and everyone else I like better be under those labels! Or.....I'll be mad

[Lucid Drake]

Let's try this rumor thing out. I heard from someone that Apple would be launching their new music service and *Video iPod* on April 28th. This I heard this morning, before I knew of this article. Interesting. I have no track record, but I did hear it from someone close to the source.

I also heard the current 10GB model will be dropped to $129 once the Video iPod starts shipping. This sounds more fanciful.

But hey, if I'm right, anyone care to buy me a new video iPod? ;P

--Lucid

[chewbaccapits]

Video iPod & $129, 10 gigers??? whatever...



Originally posted by Performfreak
I think people need to expand their tastes beyond the mainstream, but once again, just my opinion. Let the masses have what they want I suppose

Like choosing MACs over PCs? I know what you mean, but it will never happen...

[Wonder Boy]

Stop lying to yourself, find out what really happened.
Fold as if your life depended on it, and it might soon enough.
Fold Now! Click me!

way off topic but what is folding.

PS i want an ipod.

[shadowfax]

Originally posted by Wonder Boy
Stop lying to yourself, find out what really happened.
Fold as if your life depended on it, and it might soon enough.
Fold Now! Click me!

way off topic but what is folding.

PS i want an ipod.

http://folding.stanford.edu

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Performfreak
I hope that when this music service is released (if at all) it offers better pricing than $1.00 a song. That's robbery in my book! I know some other people don't feel the same way, but when emusic.com charges a flat fee of 9.95 per month (or 14.95 a month depending on which package you buy) for unlimited downloads... come on, which service would you choose? They also offer 50 free downloads just to try out the service! I don't want to turn this into an advertisement for emusic, but it's definitely the better value and the better selection to me. I wouldn't pay $1.00 a download, even if it is to my favorite cooperation in the world, if there's a better service available. Emusic has a much more eclectic grouping of music in my opinion than pressplay (the current Vivendi service) and are much cheaper if you download a good amount of tunes. Do those other services give you music in format that can be burned to an audio CD? I'd pay $1.00 a song if I could do that (and the quality was up to snuf)

[jhershauer]

Originally posted by Performfreak
yeah... I'm not a big fan of major labels

most of the time they're just out to make money, and the music often reflects that. I think people need to expand their tastes beyond the mainstream, but once again, just my opinion. Let the masses have what they want I suppose

I'm with you on the small labels, and expanding your tastes, but I don't see any down side to having access to the major label archives. Those guys have bought out a lot of artists over the years, and it's not just top 40 one-hit-wonders.

For example, with Sony you get the fantastic classic jazz archive of Columbia/Legacy, plus a whole lot of Classical music. I have a whole bunch of Columbia/Legacy Jazz CDs. I don't think that necessarily makes me one of the "manipulated masses."

I figure it's easy to get access to the smaller label stuff, but if I can actually feel like I'm getting my money's worth out of the major labels, that's a pretty big leap forward.

[Tom800]

Apple's potential problem lies in the technicalities of this: the main problem with Emusic is that the tracks are all only 128kb mp3s, there is no option to choice the quality you want to download at. Apple would have to let people choose their quality, as every user is different. To do this they would need several copies of each mp3 or AAC on their servers, however, which would take too much space...

Any suggestions as to how they may get round this?

Oh yeah, and bring on the new iPods!!

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
Do those other services give you music in format that can be burned to an audio CD? I'd pay $1.00 a song if I could do that (and the quality was up to snuf) Like usual, answering myself! :)
Just looked up PressPlay - 10 "portable" downloads a month for $18 a month.
eMusic, with a year contract, $10 a month and you CAN burn CD's from them. Not major labels so that's a plus or minus depending on who you are. (The $$$ is with the major labels though, so Apple needs to go that way)

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Tom800
Apple's potential problem lies in the technicalities of this: the main problem with Emusic is that the tracks are all only 128kb mp3s, there is no option to choice the quality you want to download at. Apple would have to let people choose their quality, as every user is different. To do this they would need several copies of each mp3 or AAC on their servers, however, which would take too much space...

Any suggestions as to how they may get round this?Storage space is cheap. A 42-U rack of X-Raids holds something like 35 Terabytes. My math is terible but at 5 MB per track, that's 7 Million Tracks per rack. A pair of those racks would probably store more than enough!

[arn]

Originally posted by Tom800
Apple's potential problem lies in the technicalities of this: the main problem with Emusic is that the tracks are all only 128kb mp3s, there is no option to choice the quality you want to download at. Apple would have to let people choose their quality, as every user is different. To do this they would need several copies of each mp3 or AAC on their servers, however, which would take too much space...

Drive space is cheap. I don't see that as a problem.

arn

[Performfreak]

yes, I've noticed that emusic's files are only 128kb, but remember, not all 128kb files are imported equally. They must have a pretty good importer because I'm a bit of an audiophile myself, and have noticed the deficiences of past mp3's, and these have none of those. I'm quite pleased. they have many independent artists, which is what I listen to (I'm primarily a SKA/reggae/punk/jazz listener with a little rock here and there, and I couldn't be happier). and yes, they are straight mp3's, so you can burn and do whatever you want with em.

[lunarmac]

apple's service well be like audibles
you can choose a bit rate
and it allows you transfer to ipod
or to burn on to cd
but will only be active in itunes
which you will need to
register with the site
if you want a demo
just go to audible.com

[steve53e]

I have to side with those in the quality camp. Paying $1.00 for a low bit rate download that would sound rather bland on my home stereo is hard to justify at this point. I have no doubt I'll sign up and try the service. I just hope Apple doesn't skimp on quality, which in the end, will be the determining factor whether I remain with the service or not.

[eric_n_dfw]

Ditto on the quality requirement. I said earlier I'd pay $1.00 a track - but it would have to be high quality - preferably AAC.

If it's like Audible, where iTunes is the only way to burn the CD's, I could live it that. I have a couple of Audible books and, aside from the pain of splitting them across multiple CD's, I was impressed with how iTunes handles them.

[ogun7]

Originally posted by Tom800
Apple's potential problem lies in the technicalities of this: the main problem with Emusic is that the tracks are all only 128kb mp3s, there is no option to choice the quality you want to download at. Apple would have to let people choose their quality, as every user is different. To do this they would need several copies of each mp3 or AAC on their servers, however, which would take too much space...

Any suggestions as to how they may get round this?

Oh yeah, and bring on the new iPods!!

One word: AKAMAI

[Sauron1440]

Originally posted by lunarmac
apple's service well be like audibles
you can choose a bit rate
and it allows you transfer to ipod
or to burn on to cd
but will only be active in itunes
which you will need to
register with the site
if you want a demo
just go to audible.com

I doubt it - if Apple pulls this off, they'll want as many people as possible using the service - meaning PeeCee users if at all feasible (spelling?) I think limiting the songs to iTunes would be extremely frustrating, especially since iTunes is damn good, but it isn't perfect (SKINS! SOUND PLUGINS!)

There'd be little chance of limiting them on the PC side, since those folk use all sorts of players - MusicMatch, WinAMP (a mighty nice player, I might add) and the evil WMP.

One question - once you burn Audible.com stuff to CD, couldn't you just rip if from CD after you burn it? Using iTunes?

[ogun7]

Arn, do you really think the 28'th will be the release of Think Secret's iPod. Someone just got me for my original 10GB iPod I got for my birthday last April.
(Sniff) It just turned 1 last week Monday :-(

I can't live w/o my iPod
I JUST CAN'T

[GeneR]

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Hmmm.

[SoonToGetAMac]

Originally posted by Tom800
Apple's potential problem lies in the technicalities of this: the main problem with Emusic is that the tracks are all only 128kb mp3s, there is no option to choice the quality you want to download at. Apple would have to let people choose their quality, as every user is different. To do this they would need several copies of each mp3 or AAC on their servers, however, which would take too much space...

Any suggestions as to how they may get round this?

Oh yeah, and bring on the new iPods!!

As I have said, I think/hope that there will be sliding song prices. Mabye a 128 will be .75 and a 160 will be .99 or some system like that.

[AhmedFaisal]

Why should they? First of all making a deal with that sneaky dying company Vivendi is only for people with a deathwish, the desaster of Mobilcom, that was engaged with France Telecom should be a HUGE warning sign for anyone who even thinks about getting involved with big french companies, they **** anyone over (the list is LONG trust me... just ask the german companies involved in the Franco-German Airbus consortium on how many times the french screwed them). Second of all if they already have a deal with the big labels why buy one of them, if you already got the milk why buy the damn cow???:confused:
Cheers,

Ahmed

[djniche]

I don't see apple buying universal but I do see apple becoming a sony like company in the future. With this music service if it does come out. I can see apple making hardware to take advantage of all the technology they have in mac os X. I can see an apple branded home stereo and a tivo like hardware from apple!

[RBMaraman]

Originally posted by Performfreak
I hope that when this music service is released (if at all) it offers better pricing than $1.00 a song. That's robbery in my book! I know some other people don't feel the same way, but when emusic.com charges a flat fee of 9.95 per month (or 14.95 a month depending on which package you buy) for unlimited downloads... come on, which service would you choose? They also offer 50 free downloads just to try out the service! I don't want to turn this into an advertisement for emusic, but it's definitely the better value and the better selection to me. I wouldn't pay $1.00 a download, even if it is to my favorite cooperation in the world, if there's a better service available. Emusic has a much more eclectic grouping of music in my opinion than pressplay (the current Vivendi service) and are much cheaper if you download a good amount of tunes.

I just don't want this to turn into the failure that could hurt apple, possibly fatally. If they're going to go through with this venture, they better do it right.

I see what you're saying about a flat fee, and I agree that Apple should have one. But, I still think that if they don't offer one, $0.99 per song is a good price. Think about it. Most CD's have 12 songs on them, and they cost anywhere from $14 to $18. I'd rather pay $11.88 for 12 songs instead of $16.

If these rumors are true (and they seem to be), I will be one of the first to signup. I know Apple will provide an excellent service, and I know I can download without worry. I can honestly say that I haven't used a P2P service since Napster was shut down, and even when Napster was going I only downloaded a total of 15 songs (and those were just TV theme songs). I'm looking forward to subscribing to this service. I just hope .Mac members get some kind of special deal or rate. :D

[Tom800]

Thanks for responses - didn't realise the vast majority of the world's song catalogue would fit on a couple of Xserve RAID racks...

Apple better introduce a MUCH bigger iPod HD as well as AAC, however, as at $15 a month (which I hope to hell it is - not the $1 per song farce, which with some CDs, the 'Trojan Box Set' series for example, would be far MORE expensive) my downloading will know no bounds.

I want an 80 gig iPod with AAC.

Oh yeah, and better sound quality engineered into the wiring of the thing (the Nomad Zen just sounds much better, all else equal, because of the internal electrical contruction...).

[grrr223]

Personally, I can't wait for Apple to come out with this download service, because I have confidence that they'll do it right...meaning:

High Quality Music
Free-Use
Fair Price

I think AAC will take care of the first one. Conveniently, as opposed to Microsoft, Apple controls iTunes, the iPod, and OS X, it can't be that hard to lock down the songs enough to make the record companies happy while still letting us consumers get our fun. And, when you think about it, $1 a song isn't bad. If I'm downloading the music as an MP3, I obivously don't want the entire album, so $1 for a legally purchased single as opposed to $12 just for that one song you heard on the radio isn't so bad.

In the meantime, I advise you all to check out Acquisition. It's a Gnutella client that kicks Limewire out of the water, the latest version made some huge performance and reliability improvements. You can find it here http://www.acquisitionx.com/.

[The Reaper]

you all seem to be worried about the quality of these songs. let me point out that because you are buying these songs LEGALLY, you are paying not only for the song itself, but also for the licence to listen to it. it is very likely that apple will keep a record of which songs you have purchased. they will then allow you to download the same song more than once, at a variety of qualities if you want to, probably all the way up to 320kb quality.

also, there is nothing stopping apple from letting you listen to the song DIRECTLY OFF THEIR SERVERS (ie streaming) at any quality, any time. also, because the music is on the server, apple may let you preview a song at low quality, say, 3 times per song. because the previews are low quality and the song is streamed (ie the user never stores it on their own computer), the record companies won't get pissed off. but of course you can download the files you buy, and do whatever you want with them. there might be an option to download a type of DRM file where the files will only play in itunes and the ipod (ie unburnable), but this will be an option for the buyer - there might be a discount for these types of files.

i think this service would be good because there may be a 'new release' section in each genre, with the ability to preview each new release (at low bitrate) several times, and the ability to see how other users have rated a particular song. this will mean that unknown artists without a major label could get as much exposure as any of the major artists (ie quality of music, not quality of advertising, will decide which songs are hits). so its good for the artist (small artists get more exposure), good for the consumer (more music, less hassle with mistaken/unavailable downloads and internet costs than limewire etc) and its good for the record companies (because there will be less piracy). the only people who lose out will be internet service providers, because people will be making fewer downloads and have less reason to upgrade their internet service (i mean the 10 bad files you go through to find the one you want, using limewire etc).

when internet speeds generally improve a bit, apple may start offering a similar service for movies (ie you can buy/rent movies online, cheaply - people will still buy DVDs, this service just is a cheaper alternative).

all of this has only one real purpose: to utterly destroy mirosoft's Palladium DRM technology. because even if apple DOES offer some DRM files for a discount price, the key point is that they will give the user a reasonable choice, either way.

by the way, Universal owns MP3.com and most of those sites anyway, so apple will probably just replace them all with one service.

sorry for my long post.

[eric_n_dfw]

Many of you have expressed disdain with the idea of paying a buck per track. Some of you say, "That's more than if I had bought the whole CD."

Well, DUH!

We (the public) keep telling the record companies that we are sick of buying 12 tracks of crap just so we can own the 1 track we like. This is a solution. Sure, it might cost more to buy 13 individual tracks - go buy the CD then!

[steve53e]

Originally posted by Sauron1440
I doubt it - if Apple pulls this off, they'll want as many people as possible using the service - meaning PeeCee users if at all feasible (spelling?)
.
I'm not sure Apple would want to wrangle with DRM on the PC side of the house unless they have a solution. It's one thing when you make the box and the software. It's a whole different ball game when you don't.
.
Either way, it will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

[maradong]

I hope there will be some kind of "flatrate" with apple s music service, if it s gonna happen... I m some kind of a leecher, and paying 1 $ per song is far to much for me.
I would however pay up to 20 € per month if i can download as much as i want :) at a decend speed... ( 20 kb are enough ) ...

[QCassidy352]

Am I the only one who thinks this music service is just fundementally a bad idea?

First, anyone can get any song they want, free. Is it legal? No, but it's fast and easy. I just don't see people flocking to pay for something that they currently get for free.

Second, and totally separately, Apple is a computer company. There's money to be made in automobile sales, but that doesn't mean apple should wade in to that pool. Now, digital music is a lot more related to existing apple products than cars are, but I still don't see why apple feels the need to branch out like this. I personally would like to see every available resource put in to making the best possible computer at the best possible price, with the best possible OS to run on it. If apple wants to make money, give the public computers that can compete with wintel boxes in terms of both price and speed. Convince people that macs are for everyone, not just graphics people and education. Show the world why a mac beats the **** out of a wintel. I'm not excited about this service, and I won't sign up because I don't want it, and I don't need it. All I want from Apple is the best computer they can make at the best price they can give me.

Don't get muddled up in an industry you don't belong in. Do one thing, do it well.

[The Reaper]

Second, and totally separately, Apple is a computer company. There's money to be made in automobile sales, but that doesn't mean apple should wade in to that pool. Now, digital music is a lot more related to existing apple products than cars are, but I still don't see why apple feels the need to branch out like this. I personally would like to see every available resource put in to making the best possible computer at the best possible price, with the best possible OS to run on it. If apple wants to make money, give the public computers that can compete with wintel boxes in terms of both price and speed. Convince people that macs are for everyone, not just graphics people and education. Show the world why a mac beats the **** out of a wintel. I'm not excited about this service, and I won't sign up because I don't want it, and I don't need it. All I want from Apple is the best computer they can make at the best price they can give me.

apple needs this to destroy MS palladium technology before it is launched. as for buying universal, the music industry is at a low. apple is confident that their new service will change that, and allow the music companies to make much larger profits once again. apple might benefit by getting the credit for being innovative and so on, but they won't be able to benefit from those new profits. unless, of course, thhey OWN their own record cmpany. this is probably why they want to buy.

First, anyone can get any song they want, free. Is it legal? No, but it's fast and easy. I just don't see people flocking to pay for something that they currently get for free.

downloading music from limewire etc is NOT free. take into account all of the times you download the wrong song, the wrong mix or have either a low quality or broken file. i often download about 15MB of worthless junk in order to get the song i want. and, since most of the connections are slow, i also spend a significant ammount of time downloading the files. this adds to the ammount you have to pay for internet. so 56K users get charged on a 'number of hours online' basis, while broadband users get charged on a number of MB basis. either way, you lose (ignoring the very small minority with unlimited accounts). there has to be an easier way, where i can download a 3MB song that will be HIGH quality (AAC), instead of 15MB. where i can find the song i want instantly. where i have fast downloads. and, so, here comes apple to make our lives a little bit easier.

[xj9000]

http://www.macminute.com/

In an invitation sent out today, Apple announced that it will be holding a special event in San Francisco on Monday, April 28, 2003. The invitation was not specific on what the company would announce at the event, but it did say that Apple will have "announcements that will be music to your ears,"

---

looks like somethin's a commin'

[dstorey]

I thought the other new threads were valid as they pointed out a new announcement by apple for an event on the 28th not just a rumor from the la times of a new service coming out then, but oh well....they are closed now.

I hope they announce more than just the music service. I'm hoping for iTunes 4, iPod with recording, and ability to view photos transfered from a digital camera, maybe movies too - guess it would need an ipod version of iPhoto light, just like the present has iTunes light, music service including indie label support and new iTraks app (can only hope).

[Kal-EL]

quote:---------------------------------------------------------------------------
this adds to the ammount you have to pay for internet. so 56K users get charged on a 'number of hours online' basis, while broadband users get charged on a number of MB basis. either way, you lose (ignoring the very small minority with unlimited accounts).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but everyone I know that's online has unlimited usage. I have broadband and pay a fixed monthly fee regardless of how often and how much I download. My brother is on AOL dialup and pays a fixed monthly fee regardless of how many hours he spends online. I don't know anyone who pays hourly rates for AOL anymore. I know it is still a viable option, but everyone I know with AOL pays a flat monthy fee for unlimited internet. My broadband is unlimited for anyone that has it.

[RLB]

Looks like invitations were sent out to select media for a Special Event (http://maccentral.macworld.com/news/2003/04/21/appleevent/) . It sure is music to my ears.

It looks like they will be announced on Monday and available on Friday (May 2) b/c according to Thinksecret (www.Thinksecret.com) there will be an in store event on that Friday. Can't wait.

[The Reaper]

I'm not sure where you're getting your information, but everyone I know that's online has unlimited usage. I have broadband and pay a fixed monthly fee regardless of how often and how much I download. My brother is on AOL dialup and pays a fixed monthly fee regardless of how many hours he spends online. I don't know anyone who pays hourly rates for AOL anymore. I know it is still a viable option, but everyone I know with AOL pays a flat monthy fee for unlimited internet. My broadband is unlimited for anyone that has it.

i guess you're right, i'm in australia, so we haven't caught up with the US in that respect (the internet companies can still get away with screwing us over). but still, the majority of people ARE on dialup services, and the time spent searching through downloads can be, by itself, often reason enough to have such an easy to use service. if anything, it will just remove one small hassle from our lives that we don't need. plus, most people want to do the right thing: currently, the price difference between doing the 'right' thing and doing the affordable thing is too great. if the new service is decent enough value, i tink that people will use the service on principal (most people want to support their artists, but they don't feel as though they have a choice).

[maradong]

anybody knows if there will be any limitations what you can actually do with the songs? same as with the drm management @ m$ ?
Would be bad, if i pay for a song and I can only burn it once or something like that.

[BenRoethig]

By the way, you're paying about a dollar a song when you buy a CD. Apple is not going to offer songs at price significantly lower than what you would pay on a CD. Why? First, the record companies are not going to give Apple a discount on licensing fees. If Apple demands a discount, the record companies will tell Apple exactly where to go. A music service can't work if you have no music. Second, Apple needs to make money. They are a business, not a public service.

I think this will be a success. This service will replace the single. There's an artist that you only like a song or two. You don't want to pay $15 for the CD or $4 for the single. Just go to www.applemusic.com or whatever they end up calling it and download the song for $1. It's also legal. In the end you only buy the songs you want and wind up saving money over buying the CDs. I could also see this service popping on in music stores.

[illumin8]

Originally posted by Tom800
I want an 80 gig iPod with AAC.

I'm with you on that one, Tom800. My MP3 collection is about 45 GB and I would love to be able to take it all on my iPod. Even if they release a 40GB iPod I will still not have enough room... :(

[freundt]

Originally posted by BenRoethig
By the way, you're paying about a dollar a song when you buy a CD. Apple is not going to offer songs at price significantly lower than what you would pay on a CD. Why? First, the record companies are not going to give Apple a discount on licensing fees. If Apple demands a discount, the record companies will tell Apple exactly where to go. A music service can't work if you have no music. Second, Apple needs to make money. They are a business, not a public service.

I think this will be a success. This service will replace the single. There's an artist that you only like a song or two. You don't want to pay $15 for the CD or $4 for the single. Just go to www.applemusic.com or whatever they end up calling it and download the song for $1. It's also legal. In the end you only buy the songs you want and wind up saving money over buying the CDs. I could also see this service popping on in music stores.

Yeah, but when I buy a CD, I get a physical object that will not disappear if my harddrive crashes, A object that can be easily shared with friends, etc.. I also get Liner Notes and other cool things. When I buy music online I get only the music. No packaging, no Liner Notes. So I would hope to pay less for that.

ALSO, don;t you know that most of the cost of a cd is bound up in packaging and promotion, and that the music itself is the cheapest element of it? So why should I be gouged for online music and pay as mouch for a song as I do for that same song on a more versitile format (CD that I can share, rip to my HD, etc..) with NO DRM and ? It makes no sense.

I know you will say, well you CAN burn the music once you download it. True, but it more expesive because you have to factor in the cost of my internet connection and my time, the Blank CD, and the time it takes to make a decent looking cover.

All in all, CD's are cheaper.

However, I will use this service for one thing only - to get the single I want without having to shell out $15++ bucks for the whole CD.

Whew!
_f

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by QCassidy352
First, anyone can get any song they want, free. Is it legal? No, but it's fast and easy. I just don't see people flocking to pay for something that they currently get for free.[/i]
You answered your own question - it's illegal. It's theft. Say what you will about the ease of downloading, that simple fact still holds - it breaks the law to do it.

Originally posted by QCassidy352
Don't get muddled up in an industry you don't belong in. Do one thing, do it well. Having all your eggs in one basket is not a good idea either. Diversification will make Apple a better company. Their stock value will go up if this venture is profitable and the profits can in turn be used to help fund OS X and hardware development. Plus, like someone else here said, this may be a nuclear bomb to Microsoft's DRM strategy.