Billboard to Reveal Apple Music Plans?

[MacRumors]

MacWorld.co.uk (http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/top_news_item.cfm?NewsID=6258) is reporting that Billboard will publish details of Apple Music Service:

US Music-industry bible Billboard is to publish details of Apple's new digital-music service at 8pm UK time [3pm Eastern] ? but only to subscribers of the Premium Services section of Billboard.com. A minimum six-month subscription to the Web service costs $175 for UK and Europe.

This information would presumably be more detailed than this Billboard article (http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1874807) which provides some overview of services:

Label sources tell Bulletin that the service is an a la carte download store -- not unlike that of rival Liquid Audio -- that is built into Apple's iTunes player. No subscription is required for the service, and tracks are expected to retail for an average of 99 cents. Once purchased, tracks are transferred to the consumer's iTunes music library and are automatically synched to the user's iPod portable player.

[MightyB]

...anyone have the premium service??????

[knoxer]

I hope no one is stupid (or rich) enough to consider blowing $175 to find out what Apple is announcing in three days. It's only three days after all...

Of course if someone is already a member, we expect a full report :)

[rafaelperini]

Would be nice to have an option of a monthly fee abd unlimited download!

[sparks9]

Cool, but it would be nice if there was a discount when buying full albums.

[jholzner]

I don't mind the 99 cents a song...but I was hoping they would ALSO allow for a subscription with unlimited downloads or something for those who will download a lot.

[ldjessee]

Hello,

Sounds good so far.

[dongmin]

the latest rates rumor:

$.99 a song

$10 an album

the latter seems like a pretty decent deal, especially if you combine it with the convenience of previewing all the songs. I'm curious about what kind of quality (i.e. kbps) they'll offer. I would hope for at least AAC 192 kbps if I'm spending that much for an album.

[moosecat]

I'm sure someone will make the info available to us when Billboard comes out with it ... Perhaps some other rumor site in need of a "scoop" will spring for the membership.

[MightyB]

Does anyone have any idea of the Digital Rights they may or may not be associated with the service?

Am I going to be able to burn to CD? Send to my friend? Etc, ETc.....

or are they going to "revolutionize" this as well and limit where the song can go?

[bennetsaysargh]

i knew that something would leak out before the announcement! i hope someone here has that subscription to give us a full report!

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
i knew that something would leak out before the announcement! i hope someone here has that subscription to give us a full report!

I am eager to find out all the details about this service, but I'd rather be surprised with an Apple announcement on Monday...not Billboard :(.

I guess I'm a purest.

[jouster]

It's inconceivable that someone out there, who has a subscription won't let the cat out of the bag.

I'm sure plenty of tech journalists, for example, will have access to this info.

If anything of consequence is released, we'll all know shortly after....

[Malic]

Better not be true - the part about "only playable on up to 3 Macs". If I take good care of them (laser-rot aside), the CD's that buy today are good for forever. I think I will upgrade/go-through more than 3 Macs in my lifetime! :(

[Chef Ramen]

anybody know what kinda selection they will have? i want lots of electronic and jam bands...thats it:D

[Awimoway]

Unlimited iPods, 3 computers

That sounds a lot better to me than the DRM FUD I had been hearing in some of the rumors.

[bennetsaysargh]

Originally posted by Malic
Better not be true - the part about "only playable on up to 3 Macs". If I take good care of them (laser-rot aside), the CD's that buy today are good for forever. I think I will upgrade/go-through more than 3 Macs in my lifetime! :(

it also says that you will be able to burn it to cds and sync it with the iPod. people will also find ways to unlock these files eventually.

[locutus]

why only macs?

I think they should add pc to the mix!

more money for apple!
more good stuff for us!

p.s new mac user! bought a PB 12" (not really a switcher, had macs before)

[esome]

Originally posted by knoxer
I hope no one is stupid (or rich) enough to consider blowing $175 to find out what Apple is announcing in three days. It's only three days after all...

Of course if someone is already a member, we expect a full report :)

Ha, there are plenty of people out there that are both wealthy AND stupid. Hopefully at least one of them reads this forum.

("The service will also allow legitimate users to play the songs on up to three Macs and an unlimited number of registered iPods, however.")

Anyone care to speculate on how one would be prevented from just copying what they'd download on to a fourth machine (or a CD or shared network drive for that matter)? Or is the suggestion that this would just be the rule and it would be up to the individual to police themselves? If the latter, it's hard to imaging the music industry signing on to such an arrangement. I'm pretty niave and uninformed about these issues so maybe someone here could eplain this to me.

Thanks!

[edit] oh, i see now that you CAN burn to CD. I'm still a little fuzzy on how these files might be 'protected' though.

[lunarmac]

ok
just check out
audible.com if
you want to know
how apple will
implement any type
of restrictions on songs

i'm pretty sure apple
will use the same type
of setup as audible

[richard5mith]

You register iTunes. You download a song. It's tagged to your iTunes. Each time you play it, it checks what iTunes is playing it. If the two match, it plays.

Every time you play it on a new iTunes, it adds that iTunes code to the file. Once that hits three, no more.

Or something.

I'm just making this up as I go along.

Or how about you register up to three iTunes under your .Mac account. And the song is tied to all three.

Or...

Nah, I'm out of ideas now.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by locutus
why only macs?

I think they should add pc to the mix!

more money for apple!
more good stuff for us!

p.s new mac user! bought a PB 12" (not really a switcher, had macs before)

the problem with offering this service to PCs is that Apple can't control every step in the distribution like they can with Macs--for better or worse. No other company has the tight integration between the service, music app, PC, and portable player to make this work.

Only three computers? How would they enforce this? Would it involve some sort of hardware ID? Or will iTunes 4 have to be registered with Apple for this thing to work?

I would guess the latter. You'll have to enter your Mac ID to register your iTunes. And then you'll only be able to play your downloaded songs with matching registered copies of iTunes. Finally, each Mac ID will allow only three registered copies of iTunes.

So when you buy a new Mac, you can 'unregister' the copy of iTunes on your old mac and install a new registered copy on your new Mac.


edit: sorry to repete most of richard5mith's post; he posted while I was typing...

[Playfrsbee]

I really would be dissapointed if this turned out to be true. $10 an album would be more then a label would make (after distribution and retail costs) on a real cd! No wonder Apple was so successful in getting the majors on board! They're gonna make out like bandits, and get to sit on their rears while doing it.

Plus there will be copy protection on your legally downloaded music?!?!?

If this things are true, this service is doomed for failure. I (for one) will not be spending a dollar a song for a file that sounds (at best) half as good as a .aiff (cd-quality) file--especially one that will prevent me from listening to it at times.

Boo to Apple...I thought they'd stick up for us, the consumer a bit more here...

So much for rip...mix...burn, more like crash and burn.

[meghop]

Originally posted by locutus
why only macs?

I think they should add pc to the mix!

more money for apple!
more good stuff for us!

p.s new mac user! bought a PB 12" (not really a switcher, had macs before)

The Mac has a small enough marketshare that the record companies can do this on a smaller, "trial" sort of scale, to see how well it works. The record companies have been very tepid about even the very restricted services that are already available - this is a way for them to test the waters while keeping their risk very low. This is just my opinion, of course, but I wouldn't be surprised if it was initially available to only Mac users, then to windows ipod users (for example, d/l direct to ipod with a small windows application), then a full windows release of the service via webportal or something, incrementally as the service establishes itself as both profitable and successful. Just my 2 cents :-)

[mactastic]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by dongmin
So when you buy a new Mac, you can 'unregister' the copy of iTunes on your old mac and install a new registered copy on your new Mac.


I was thinking something similar, but couldn't you just unregister and reregister all the time then?

[buseman]

the article is up! (it seems) here (http://www.billboard.com/bb/billboard_members/index.jsp)

[bobme]

Originally posted by dongmin
the latest rates rumor:

$.99 a song

$10 an album

the latter seems like a pretty decent deal, especially if you combine it with the convenience of previewing all the songs. I'm curious about what kind of quality (i.e. kbps) they'll offer. I would hope for at least AAC 192 kbps if I'm spending that much for an album.


I agree strongly on the quality issue. Now, what about albums with 6 songs?? Do I have to download individually to get them for 6 bucks instead of 10?? Weird. Hell, I own a disc with ONE track! (Bach, Goldberg Variations, Glenn Gould).

Maybe with the album download, you get the album art as well. That would be cool!

At 10 bucks retail, the record companies will probably make MORE money from this than they do from a CD sale in a retail store. win-win-win.

-Bob

[dongmin]

Originally posted by mactastic
[QUOTE]Originally posted by dongmin
So when you buy a new Mac, you can 'unregister' the copy of iTunes on your old mac and install a new registered copy on your new Mac.


I was thinking something similar, but couldn't you just unregister and reregister all the time then?

sure, but it'd be a huge waste of time to uninstall and install iTunes and go through all the hoops of registering everytime you wanted to play a song on another computer

[gunb0y]

I really would be dissapointed if this turned out to be true. $10 an album would be more then a label would make (after distribution and retail costs) on a real cd! No wonder Apple was so successful in getting the majors on board! They're gonna make out like bandits, and get to sit on their rears while doing it.

Hey the last time I checked cd's were $12 at the local music store, and thats cheap. I wouldn't mind saving money and having the music on my computer legally. Apple is showing the world how to do legal file sharing right.

the article is up! (it seems) here

OK, now whos taking one for the team and paying the subscription fee? :p

[Mr.Hey]

Originally posted by MightyB
Does anyone have any idea of the Digital Rights they may or may not be associated with the service?

Am I going to be able to burn to CD? Send to my friend? Etc, ETc.....?

I think its only Apple branded devices that will be able to unlock the DRM files.

[kcmac]

I think you are going to be able to stream for a duration to see if you like the song.

Then you will have your choice of a few different quality of downloads. Lower quality, less money. Higher, more.

Old songs may cost less than new hits. They can have specials on certain artists for less to get you to buy. Maybe we will see different music houses getting more competitive with "their artists" and have special deals. Maybe they will tag a track from a new artist onto popular artists for free to get you to buy from the new one eventually.

I think it could also be good from the artists side. Now instead of only publishing music when there is enough for a CD, they can publish when they have one or a few new ones.

If this service is enticing, the music industry could really take advantage of it. To really be worthwhile however, it can't just be a mac thing forever. I am interested to see how this gets to the other side.

[agp]

Surely copy protection isn't that much of an issue?!

At the moment people can buy a CD, rip it and distribute it via peer-to-peer file sharing.

All that is being added is another way for people to buy the music. If they want to distribute it I am sure they will crack any method employed to copy protect the files.

The main point is to create another revenue stream for the music industry....hence people who want music legally but at a lower cost, and to play on their computer can buy it online.

People who want free music will continue to d/l it for free, but others will switch and pay a small amount for the music online.

[beowolf]

is this http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1874807 the article in mention? I was able to get at it w/o a subscription (found the link on macsurfer.com)

[Flowbee]

The Billboard article says "...tracks are expected to retail for an average of 99 cents." I guess that means some tracks will cost more than others (perhaps new releases or 10+ minute tracks would cost more).

Just pointing it out, as it seems no one's mentioned it yet.

[Molson]

Originally posted by beowolf
is this http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1874807 the article in mention? I was able to get at it w/o a subscription (found the link on macsurfer.com)

nope it's the one on here.... (http://www.billboard.com/bb/billboard_members/index.jsp)

[gunb0y]

10 minutes

[Molson]

From MacMinute.....

WSJ: Apple signs exclusive artists for music service
April 25, 2003 - 14:21 EDT__ Today's Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required) has a detailed report on Apple's new digital music service, which is expected to be launched on Monday. Among the new information in the report, it says that Apple CEO Steve Jobs called Irving Azoff, the manager of the rock group the Eagles, to ask if their music could be included in the new online service. "Please, please, please clear this," Jobs reportedly said, knowing the Eagles in the past have blocked the use of their songs on such services. Jobs even offered to personally demonstrate the service for Azoff and Eagles singer Don Henley. Earlier this week, the band and AOL Time Warner indeed struck a deal, allowing most of the band's music to be used by Apple's service. "I've said 'no' to all of them," Azoff says of other music services. "But I don't like their services, and I liked [Apple's] product."

In addition to the Eagles, the Apple CEO has signed up the pop band No Doubt, and several other artists who haven't yet allowed their songs to be offered by other online ventures. The new service is expected to have an "exclusives" area for music not available elsewhere.

"According to people who have met with Mr. Jobs, the new service is integrated with Apple's iTunes software. Only Apple customers can use it, but that may change. The service requires a mouse click to buy songs and additional simple steps to move them to a CD or an iPod. Apple will charge 99 cents per song and sell albums for around $10, they say. Users will get to keep the songs permanently.

He impressed music-industry executives with his intricate knowledge of the new service, say people who have met with him. In some meetings, he sat at the computer himself to demonstrate. With his trademark confidence, he has asserted Apple will transform the online-music business, claiming that consumers will pay to download millions of songs in just a few months. And he has promised Apple's marketing machine will swing into action behind the music initiative, with an ad blitz similar to Apple's 'Think Different' and 'Switch' campaigns."

[DGFan]

Originally posted by dongmin
the latest rates rumor:

$.99 a song

$10 an album

the latter seems like a pretty decent deal, especially if you combine it with the convenience of previewing all the songs. I'm curious about what kind of quality (i.e. kbps) they'll offer. I would hope for at least AAC 192 kbps if I'm spending that much for an album.

I would say that the former is a good deal but not the latter.

Why pay $10 for digital copies when I can buy the CD for $15?

On the other hand, it would be worth paying $3 for the three good songs on the album (that's usually the maximum).

[gunb0y]

Why pay $10 for digital copies when I can buy the CD for $15?
for $11 you could have the cd in your hands and not have to drive to the store.

[DGFan]

Originally posted by bennetsaysargh
it also says that you will be able to burn it to cds and sync it with the iPod. people will also find ways to unlock these files eventually.

I am sure it won't be difficult to unlock these files. Burn it to a CD and then rip it back to MP3's. But even if that is allowed it certainly won't make it easier to copy music. It would be a pain because you would have to use an audio CD. And the quality would be less than an MP3 ripped from a store bought CD. So even though it would be unlockable it won't be worth the time for people who want to steal - there are already easier ways.

It sounds like it will be a good service for people who actually want to be legit.

[centauratlas]

I read the Journal article this morning and the big thing for me was the "three Macs and unlimited iPods". Right now I buy the CD (don't have ANY Naptster-type songs) and scan it in and then can listen to it on my iPod, on one of the Macs etc. Then I can put it on the iPod or a CD or whatever. So here are my questions.

1. What is to prevent you from burning your song to a CD and then importing it again with iTunes. How will iTunes know whether it is one you bought online? Once it is on the CD, it seems unlikely that iTunes would know it.

2. Why not just Audio Hijack it?

I don't have a problem with paying for the songs - I have around 6598 on my computer now all paid for - but I don't want to have to screw around with registering/unregistering in 5 years (or sooner) when I go to a different computer or whatever. I guess my point is, if I have paid for the music, make sure it is REALLY easy for me move it to a new machine etc.

3. What happens if you get a reverse-switcher? Just wondering if this isn't a good method to keep switching costs high...unless they announce a PC version of course.

:-)

[G4scott]

Guys, if Apple can get groups that don't let other downloading services sell their songs to go with them, then there must be something good here.

I'm waiting for the 28th!

[crookedcharlie]

After burning it to a CD, couldn't I rip it as an MP3 to any number of computers I wanted?


EDIT: Couldn't I see other have asked this question?

[gunb0y]

After burning it to a CD, couldn't I rip it as an MP3 to any number of computers I wanted?
yes, but then the quality issue is raised. A lot of people are audiophiles and need good quality.

[JakeWalker]

I subscribe to billboard and just read the premium article. There is no more information, just analysis about whether or not it will work from industry experts. They were basically saying that the industry was excited because Apple is going to put lots of marketing money behind the service, which will be a wakeup call to people to let them understand there is a legal alternative to Kazaa.

But NO NEW DETAILS IN THE BILLBOARD article.

Arn, if you want to see it, let me know...we'll work something out.

Jake

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by MightyB
Am I going to be able to burn to CD? Send to my friend? Etc, ETc.....

or are they going to "revolutionize" this as well and limit where the song can go? You can't legaly send copyrighted material to anyone (unless you get permission from the copyright holder) - THAT'S THE POINT!

Unless you are asking how to buy a song and GIVE it to a friend (meaning, that copy is not on your machine any more), then that's a good question but if you want to duplicate and distribute it (like most people do/did on Kazaa, GNUTella and the late Napster) you are asking how to break the law. Of course Apple isn't going to help you do that; and no music label or artist is going to sign on to such a system.

[Tom800]

1. If this pricing is true then the music service is a joke - seriously, 10 bucks for a music download, when you could get the real CD from Amazon for almost the same and have all the quality and cover art?! Not to mention no DRM!

2. Only a few people are in the situation where they only want one or two tracks from an album; most of us buy the entire CD because we like the artist enough to want to hear all the tracks. Even if some tracks are weak, how are you to know this unless you've listened to the CD for a while? For anyone living outside of the mainstream hits "music" world, this service will be a rip-off. Apple should operate a monthly subscription like Emusic's.

[Molson]

Originally posted by Tom800
1. If this pricing is true then the music service is a joke - seriously, 10 bucks for a music download, when you could get the real CD from Amazon for almost the same and have all the quality and cover art?! Not to mention no DRM!


Everyone assumes that mp3 will still be available.

What if the new version of iTunes has DRM enabled, it may be that any music you rip using iTunes 4 is protected this way. Maybe mp3 encoding will be disabled. Maybe iTunes 4 will restrict you to AAC encoding only. Maybe this restriction is what swung the record companies into Apple's favour. It doesn't affect Apple at all - you can still Rip, Mix, Burn but this time with DRM enabled AAC (mp4).

Possible. mp3 has no advantages over mp4 (AAC) at all..... apart from lack of DRM!

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Tom800
1. If this pricing is true then the music service is a joke - seriously, 10 bucks for a music download, when you could get the real CD from Amazon for almost the same and have all the quality and cover art?! Not to mention no DRM!

2. Only a few people are in the situation where they only want one or two tracks from an album; most of us buy the entire CD because we like the artist enough to want to hear all the tracks. Even if some tracks are weak, how are you to know this unless you've listened to the CD for a while? For anyone living outside of the mainstream hits "music" world, this service will be a rip-off. Apple should operate a monthly subscription like Emusic's. I disagree - one of the MAJOR reasons people are quoted for having used Napster and the like are that they were sick of paying for 9 tracks that they didn't like just to listen to the 2 they did.

Every person is different - just because you buy entire albums doesn't mean everyone will.

If you want the whole CD - go buy it! What is the big hairy deal here?

[dstorey]

I think the three mac thing has issues, like what happens if you have more than three macs at home or one gets old and you upgrade. I think the best idea would be no restrictions on the AAC file but it encodes your customer ID into the track. This would let you play it on any number of macs, take it to a friends house, bur it to cd etc. But if you put it on something like napster and it gets onto the web then you can be traced by the id on the distrobuted track and thus can be charged for breaking the law. If this happens then people wouldn't want to distrobute it freely and maybe only give it to trusted friends if they are sure they will keep it safe....sure givbing it to any friend is also illigal but I'm sure record companies wouldn't be so worried about limited distrobution between friends as you've been easily able to do that ever since well recordings came out...it's just with the internet and cd burners has it been a problem cause its not just a few friends but the whole world near enough. i think this key on your track would be a much better idea for people that want to play by the rules and can still catch people that don't but in a fair way not to effect others. The only real issue with this is what happens if someone hacks you and steals your files...but you should rerally try to keep your computer as secure as possible anyway.

[gwangung]

...is that there no matter WHAT is announced on Monday, there's gonna be some people who are gonna get so pissed off that they'll flood the boards with so much wailing and moaning that everyone's gonna think that Apple is dead in the water.

Of course, the same thing happened after the introduction of the original iMac...and the introduction of the cube. So let's see how it plays out in the market....

[eric_n_dfw]

I beleive that the "DRM" that you all are wondering about is already implemented in the current MPEG-4 codec in QuickTime. Check out the MPEG-4 Export setting's in QT 6 Pro or via any QT Application (this from Final Cut Pro - Export to Quicktime:MPEG-4)

[pmcaleer]

...To be honest, I'm not sure where people are getting this, "Buy it at Amazon for $10!" argument from. I did a quick glance of a few of my favorite artists, and prices ranged from $9.99 (okay) to $17.99 - and mind you that's without shipping or sales tax. Yes, shipping is free at the $25 mark, but maybe I don't want $25 worth of music right now.

If I can get the same thing instantly for $10, and have it on my iPod and Cube, that's really all I need. And I think Apple is wagering that's what a large number of other people want too. (Except for the Cube. :)

[Macpoops]

No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them.

[Tom800]

---------
What if the new version of iTunes has DRM enabled, it may be that any music you rip using iTunes 4 is protected this way. Maybe mp3 encoding will be disabled. Maybe iTunes 4 will restrict you to AAC encoding only. Maybe this restriction is what swung the record companies into Apple's favour. It doesn't affect Apple at all - you can still Rip, Mix, Burn but this time with DRM enabled AAC (mp4).

Possible. mp3 has no advantages over mp4 (AAC) at all..... apart from lack of DRM!

--------
If that's the case then I'll stay with iTunes 3! (How do you do these quote of other posts things?)


---------
I disagree - one of the MAJOR reasons people are quoted for having used Napster and the like are that they were sick of paying for 9 tracks that they didn't like just to listen to the 2 they did.

Every person is different - just because you buy entire albums doesn't mean everyone will.

If you want the whole CD - go buy it! What is the big hairy deal here?

---------
People used Napster for a whole load of different reasons, ranging from marvelling at the novelty of it to attempts to get whole albums off it. As anyone knows, the latter was like pulling teeth, so a couple of songs was usually the maximum you could get, intended or otherwise. What bugs me is that Apple service could be *killer* if it were based on subscription; as it looks at the moment, it'll be a Napster for those with a conscience (or wallet!).

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Macpoops
No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them. Exactly!
I like a lot of the generic crap, I also like good stuff too. I'll go buy the good stuff at the store to have the CD, Liner notes, etc. The rest I'd like to download, legaly.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Tom800
1. If this pricing is true then the music service is a joke - seriously, 10 bucks for a music download, when you could get the real CD from Amazon for almost the same and have all the quality and cover art?! Not to mention no DRM!

Um, more and more CDs have DRM these days.

[bitfactory]

Originally posted by Macpoops
No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them.

i completely disagree... if ALL of the labels sign on, AND they allow DEEP catalog browsing (including UK and Europe sub-labels) i'm going to go broke buying all the stuff i order from the UK/Sweden/Australia etc...

and i hate 99.999% of the swill played on the radio.

this could finally be the vehicle to FIND and DOWNLOAD 'obscure' artists that you just can't find in stores and have to order overseas anyway.

[littlejim]

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
I disagree - one of the MAJOR reasons people are quoted for having used Napster and the like are that they were sick of paying for 9 tracks that they didn't like just to listen to the 2 they did.

Every person is different - just because you buy entire albums doesn't mean everyone will.

If you want the whole CD - go buy it! What is the big hairy deal here?
A good point.

The more I think about the service, the more I think it might be good.

Nine times out of ten, I want all the tracks and I'll buy the whole CD, but there are occasions when I just want the highlights. There's still a lot of my old vinyl that I havn't replaced because 75% of the tracks were trash.

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by Macpoops
No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them.

Absolutely. From the perspective of an executive, this service is to make money-not further develop accessability to "unmainstream" music (even though the two are not exactly mutually exclusive).

And as a side note, I think it is funny how so many people who consider themselves out of the mainstream criticize mainstream music. In my opinion, it is very elitist of people to talk down to people who like mainstream music.

Just let people listen to whatever they like.

[drastik]

Originally posted by Macpoops
No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them.

great point, I don't listen to any of the crap on the radio either. The interesting thing is, people like you and I are more likely to pay for music because we want to support the artists.

[peterjhill]

About making an audio cd then ripping it as an mp3...

I can make an audio cd from my audible files that will play on any cd player that plays cd-r's (mp3 not necessary), but I am not able to rip the audio into an mp3. Nor am I able to make a disk image of an audible audio cd with disk copy. There may be workarounds but I have not found them and they would probably violate the dreaded dcma, so the labels would go after people who tried to post software that would let people steal the music.

[GeeYouEye]

Originally posted by Tom800
---------
What if the new version of iTunes has DRM enabled, it may be that any music you rip using iTunes 4 is protected this way. Maybe mp3 encoding will be disabled. Maybe iTunes 4 will restrict you to AAC encoding only. Maybe this restriction is what swung the record companies into Apple's favour. It doesn't affect Apple at all - you can still Rip, Mix, Burn but this time with DRM enabled AAC (mp4).

Possible. mp3 has no advantages over mp4 (AAC) at all..... apart from lack of DRM!

--------
If that's the case then I'll stay with iTunes 3! (How do you do these quote of other posts things?)


---------
I disagree - one of the MAJOR reasons people are quoted for having used Napster and the like are that they were sick of paying for 9 tracks that they didn't like just to listen to the 2 they did.

Every person is different - just because you buy entire albums doesn't mean everyone will.

If you want the whole CD - go buy it! What is the big hairy deal here?

---------
People used Napster for a whole load of different reasons, ranging from marvelling at the novelty of it to attempts to get whole albums off it. As anyone knows, the latter was like pulling teeth, so a couple of songs was usually the maximum you could get, intended or otherwise. What bugs me is that Apple service could be *killer* if it were based on subscription; as it looks at the moment, it'll be a Napster for those with a conscience (or wallet!).

1. By clicking the quote button below a post or by typing (without the spaces) [ q u o t e ] and [ / q u o t e ]

2. There's always Audion.

3. The key will be the wallet. I know a bunch of people who do download exclusively because they don't have enough money for albums, or a credit card to purchase them individually via the existing services. Apple certainly can't help there.

[bitfactory]

Originally posted by Freg3000
Absolutely. From the perspective of an executive, this service is to make money-not further develop accessability to "unmainstream" music (even though the two are not exactly mutually exclusive).

nope. its for BOTH. for rec. companies reluctant to promote + distribute albums by lesser-known artists, all they have to do is provide access to the files.

if the service allows you to 'preview' a stream of the music, this will benefit BOTH sides of the fence.

after-all, money is money - whether its coming from the sales of U2 or, let's say, Augie March.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by Playfrsbee
I really would be dissapointed if this turned out to be true. $10 an album would be more then a label would make (after distribution and retail costs) on a real cd!

Umm, it's also more than the label will make under Apple's scheme ... Did you expect Apple to do this gratis, solely for the benefit of the labels?

Apple will take a cut of the profits (obviously). $10/album is a good deal for the consumer (who pays $15-18+ on average now and has no way of just buying part of an album). It is a good deal for the labels if they're signing on (which means they're either getting a better cut per album before or they've actually grown a few brain cells and see that offering the consumer more choice means higher quantity of sales and hence they don't need to make as large a cut off digital distribution as they do off physical distribution). And, as Apple is hosting this, one would hope that they're acting in their own best interest as well.

Personally, I'd love to start buying my music without the waste of CDs, but I don't want to lose the art of the album (meaning, the whole "package" of contents - liner notes, pics, lyrics, etc - that comes with the CD) either. I'm a bit on the fence as far as using this right now.

But, price-wise, $10/album is awesome for me.

[Perceptes]

*drools* If this catches on (and spreads to PC's) this is going to revolutionize the music industry.

[indar20]

Originally posted by Tom800
1. If this pricing is true then the music service is a joke - seriously, 10 bucks for a music download, when you could get the real CD from Amazon for almost the same and have all the quality and cover art?! Not to mention no DRM!

2. Only a few people are in the situation where they only want one or two tracks from an album; most of us buy the entire CD because we like the artist enough to want to hear all the tracks. Even if some tracks are weak, how are you to know this unless you've listened to the CD for a while? For anyone living outside of the mainstream hits "music" world, this service will be a rip-off. Apple should operate a monthly subscription like Emusic's.

first off, 10 bucks for an album is an outstanding price. at amazon you're gonna pay AT LEAST 14 or 15 bucks, + shipping. at record stores cds are usually at least 15 or 16 bucks + tax.

second, if cover art, linear notes, and sound quality are so important to everyone, then why is the iPod selling so damn well?? I could care less about cover art as long as I have the music . . . I think the mp3 explosion over the last several years shows that most people agree.

if this news about the service is true, i predict an enourmous success. artists and record companies will jump on board for higher margins, and consumers will jump on board for lower prices. SCREW CDS--gimme the damn music!

[zulgand04]

I see alot of argueing on is this service worth it or not. Have we seen or heard all the details yet, no. Why is everyone getting all worked up over something we know almost nothing about, all we have is speculation and some small congrete info. When monday comes and we get to see the service for ourselves then go complain, but for now relax. Things will work out, for both us and the record companies, Apple would't put this much into something that from the start is going to fail, if it does it does but intill it does. "just be cool" west side story

-Neal

ps. the avg price for a cd is almost 15$ and i only listen to like 6 songs tops, rarely have i like an entire cd.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by peterjhill
About making an audio cd then ripping it as an mp3...

I can make an audio cd from my audible files that will play on any cd player that plays cd-r's (mp3 not necessary), but I am not able to rip the audio into an mp3. Nor am I able to make a disk image of an audible audio cd with disk copy. There may be workarounds but I have not found them and they would probably violate the dreaded dcma, so the labels would go after people who tried to post software that would let people steal the music.

I'm not sure what's wrong with the CDs that you make, but I most assuredly can rip disks that I burned. I've used this as a means of backing up audio that I've recorded from other sources. (i.e. make a recording of an old LP, tape, or what-have-you, clean it up, burn it to a CD. Computer crashes. Take burned CD and rip the songs back onto the computer.)

Perhaps it has something to do with the original CDs having DRM that others have mentioned? (I'm not familiar with that, so I can't comment on it...)

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by bitfactory
nope. its for BOTH. for rec. companies reluctant to promote + distribute albums by lesser-known artists, all they have to do is provide access to the files.

if the service allows you to 'preview' a stream of the music, this will benefit BOTH sides of the fence.

after-all, money is money - whether its coming from the sales of U2 or, let's say, Augie March.

Ok, point taken. But how much more money will be made from U2 than from Augie March? Maybe the idea is to look for a possibile new star who will generate a lot of money in say....2005. But seriously, would a record company rather get some money now in a bad economy, or would they prefer to open up pretty much unknown artists today for potential benifits tomorrow? I thin they'd take the money now, and that's why I think the service will be very mainstream.

JMHO.

[JLL]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm not sure what's wrong with the CDs that you make, but I most assuredly can rip disks that I burned. I've used this as a means of backing up audio that I've recorded from other sources. (i.e. make a recording of an old LP, tape, or what-have-you, clean it up, burn it to a CD. Computer crashes. Take burned CD and rip the songs back onto the computer.)

Perhaps it has something to do with the original CDs having DRM that others have mentioned? (I'm not familiar with that, so I can't comment on it...)

He's talking about burning CDs with Audible content that uses a DRM tech that might be used in Apple's music service.

[eric_n_dfw]

FWIW, This service may make me finaly break down and buy an iPod. So, if the rumors hold true, it's working for Apple as iPod sales will go up. (well, at least by 1! ;) )

[NavyIntel007]

It'll be interesting to see what the quality of these songs are going to be. If it's not at least 128, I won't even look at it. I'd like 160-192 but one can only dream. I really don't know what the AAC sounds like compared to a MP3 but a good quality should be expected. I mean this could also be a ploy to get people to download a song at $.99 and have them find out that the quality is so bad they have to go get the CD. I hope not, but does anyone trust the music industry?

[bitfactory]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
It'll be interesting to see what the quality of these songs are going to be. If it's not at least 128, I won't even look at it. I'd like 160-192 but one can only dream. I really don't know what the AAC sounds like compared to a MP3 but a good quality should be expected. I mean this could also be a ploy to get people to download a song at $.99 and have them find out that the quality is so bad they have to go get the CD. I hope not, but does anyone trust the music industry?

AAC sound MUCH better at lower bit-rates, so a 128 AAC will be SUPERIOR to 128 mp3... as a matter of fact, every article i've read states that even 'experts' have a hard time discerning between low-bit rate AACs and original CD track quality.

this is a good thing (c) as it enables faster downloads from smaller file sizes.

there's a downside, though - i'll have to re-rip all of my CDs (took me a whole weekend) if i want to consolidate my collection to make room for all the new music (to fit on my 10GB iPod).

btw, i've enjoyed my first few discussions here at the Macrumors discussion board!

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm not sure what's wrong with the CDs that you make, but I most assuredly can rip disks that I burned. I've used this as a means of backing up audio that I've recorded from other sources. (i.e. make a recording of an old LP, tape, or what-have-you, clean it up, burn it to a CD. Computer crashes. Take burned CD and rip the songs back onto the computer.)
)

I was commenting on Apple's protection of audible.com content. Make an audio disk of audible content, then try to rip it. You will not be able to do it. At least not easily. I am sure there is some darwin layer tool that could probably do it.

[jettredmont]

Originally posted by bitfactory
nope. its for BOTH. for rec. companies reluctant to promote + distribute albums by lesser-known artists, all they have to do is provide access to the files.

if the service allows you to 'preview' a stream of the music, this will benefit BOTH sides of the fence.

after-all, money is money - whether its coming from the sales of U2 or, let's say, Augie March.


Well, not exactly. The studio/label system thrives on control. The more people listen to "outside the mainstream" and perhaps even (perish the thought!) "unlabeled" music, the less control the labels have. The less control they have, the less able they are to swindle artists out of their earnings. The less able they are to swindle artists the less likely they are to make the escalating profits they so enjoy.

Let there be no mistake: at the very core, the main labels do not want to "broaden the horizons" of their listeners. They want to control what you think is good enough to buy. The only way they will cede this control is if they have no other choice.

That having been said, Apple stands to benefit greatly from offering more variety than your average Sam Goody. More variety means more sales, and to Apple, all sales are essentially equal. When you introduce people to new music, people (well, okay, me, I'm talking about me here :) ) are more likely to go on a "buying spree" snapping up everything that artist ever put out. Such impulse or short-decision purchases are always good for retailers.

So, between Apple and the Big 5 Labels, who will win out in this issue? I suspect that Apple will offer enough breadth initially to make a mark for themselves, but the "real" breadth and depth of catalogue won't be seen until the service has proven itself and is essentially self-sustaining. Right now, Apple has little bargaining power; once the service has proven itself Apple will be in a much better position to promote its interests above those of the labels.

[bitfactory]

Originally posted by Freg3000
Ok, point taken. But how much more money will be made from U2 than from Augie March? Maybe the idea is to look for a possibile new star who will generate a lot of money in say....2005. But seriously, would a record company rather get some money now in a bad economy, or would they prefer to open up pretty much unknown artists today for potential benifits tomorrow? I thin they'd take the money now, and that's why I think the service will be very mainstream.

JMHO.

that's my point... money is money, no matter who gets the sale.

if 5,000 people buy songs from, again, let's say Augie March, that's potentially 5,000 songs purchased by people who (a) may not have heard of them (b) may not have known how to order the tangible CD in the first place.

sure, 'breaking' an artist would be great, but not a likely proposition while the service is still Mac-only.

all-in-all, this has the possibility of completely changing the (legal) distribution method of music forever. yeah, others do it now - but it'll be Apple that revolutionizes the ease-of-use, quality and buy-in from labels.

hopefully, in the future we'll have the options to browse non-major label artists who go their own route... like Aimee Mann, who shunned Universal in a huge battle and started her own label to distribute her albums, as well as her friends + family albums.

the key is how DEEP the catalog is... if its the stuff you can find anywhere, i may not use it at all... if it offers a deep historical catalog that jumps continents, i'm all over it.

[bitfactory]

Originally posted by jettredmont
Well, not exactly. The studio/label system thrives on control. The more people listen to "outside the mainstream" and perhaps even (perish the thought!) "unlabeled" music

i agree they thrive on control - that's what makes them unmitigated pr*cks. but i'm referencing more the smaller label OWNED by the big 5... (which is a LOT).

for instance - there are a boatload of small foreign and domestic labels owned by the big 5 - the difference is that your local Media Play, Best Buy, etc... won't carry these titles, and sometimes they can't because they aren't being distributed in the states.

take the new Cardigans album, for instance... it is (at least was, not sure now) only available as an import. i ordered it and payed through the nose for it... but it was worth it. btw, Cardigans are on a sub-label called Stockholm Records (which is distrib by Universal - they may be owned by Universal as well) - but they weren't being distributed in the States. if i had the option to go through iTunes and buy the album, i would have done it in a second (and saved the import price).

small mom and pop labels are a different discussion... maybe in the future... but i'd like to see how they handle the service with the big boys, first.

[LagunaSol]

I agree that the thought of paying for music and getting nothing more than a digital file can seem a bit unsettling. I like the thought of having a new CD in my hand with artwork, liner notes, etc. But in reality, when I buy a CD now, I immediately pop it into my Mac, rip the songs to MP3, dump them to my iPod (and listen to them wirelessly through my home entertainment center via TiVo), and stuff the CD in a cabinet where it rarely again sees the light of day. The CD and case are no more than space hogs now.

What I'd like to see incorporated into iTunes is something similar to the iTunes add-on Synergy, which pulls up cover art each time a song is played. If you could click on that graphic and access lyrics, band notes, etc., I think it would be fantastic. Forget the CD and case! That's so, uh, 20th century...

[RBMaraman]

I find it interesting that everyone is assuming that Apple will not offer a monthly unlimited download option. I'm willing to bet that Apple is holding back some information, and hopefully they will offer an unlimited download price.

Apple's probably been working on this service for a year. What did they decide to do almost a year ago? They started a pay service called .Mac, which they promised would be integrated more and more with Apple's iApps. I see .Mac members getting some kind of specials rate, and/or the option for unlimited monthly downloads. Heck, I can even see Apple offering 6 months of free downloads to .Mac members, then a lower price (maybe $0.50 per song) once the 6 months is up.

The way I see it, Apple knew they were going to start a music service the minute they decided to create .Mac. Apple's worked too hard to promote .Mac as the perfect compliment to the Mac, and they would be stupid not to integrate the music service into the program.

[drastik]

Originally posted by bitfactory

for instance - there are a boatload of small foreign and domestic labels owned by the big 5 - the difference is that your local Media Play, Best Buy, etc... won't carry these titles, and sometimes they can't because they aren't being distributed in the states.



I can speak from experience here that at least in Country Music Production, this is starting to Change. Sony Nashville (which is actually Sony Music's US headquarters now, is in talks to drop a lot of the small labels it aquired in thee good times. My friends in the music media say thsi is expanding beyond country into smaller rock labels. Strangely, hip-hop labels were never that aquired, the underground has remained underground, so the situation there is about the same

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by RBMaraman
I find it interesting that everyone is assuming that Apple will not offer a monthly unlimited download option. I'm willing to bet that Apple is holding back some information, and hopefully they will offer an unlimited download price.

Apple's probably been working on this service for a year. What did they decide to do almost a year ago? They started a pay service called .Mac, which they promised would be integrated more and more with Apple's iApps. I see .Mac members getting some kind of specials rate, and/or the option for unlimited monthly downloads. Heck, I can even see Apple offering 6 months of free downloads to .Mac members, then a lower price (maybe $0.50 per song) once the 6 months is up.

The way I see it, Apple knew they were going to start a music service the minute they decided to create .Mac. Apple's worked too hard to promote .Mac as the perfect compliment to the Mac, and they would be stupid not to integrate the music service into the program.

I've got a 10Mb/s pipe going to my home and a OC192 at my office between the two I could grab everything they had to offer in WAY less than 6 months time. :)

Sorry but I just can't see Apple allowing anyone UNLIMITED downloads.

If you wanna change your wording from unlimited DOWNLOADS to unlimited (unsaveable) music streams... then MAYBE you could be right... but even then I kinda doubt it. After all even with Apples fat akami pipes it could never support UNLIMITED streams either.

Dave

[JLL]

Originally posted by DaveGee
After all even with Apples fat akami pipes it could never support UNLIMITED streams either.

Listen.com offer unlimited streaming.

[RBMaraman]

Originally posted by DaveGee
I've got a 10Mb/s pipe going to my home and a OC192 at my office between the two I could grab everything they had to offer in WAY less than 6 months time. :)

Sorry but I just can't see Apple allowing anyone UNLIMITED downloads.

If you wanna change your wording from unlimited DOWNLOADS to unlimited (unsaveable) music streams... then MAYBE you could be right... but even then I kinda doubt it. After all even with Apples fat akami pipes it could never support UNLIMITED streams either.

Dave

OK then DaveGee, I'll rephrase my statements. And please, there is no need to SHOUT! OK! THANK YOU!

I see what you mean about unlimited downloads. If they wanted to make a profit, they'd have to price the service at $500+ per month.

But, do you agree that .Mac integration would be an excellent strategy? My post wasn't about whether or not unlimited downloads will happen (though it does kinda soung that way). It was more about people's opinions on .Mac integration.

[buffsldr]

Originally posted by Freg3000
I am eager to find out all the details about this service, but I'd rather be surprised with an Apple announcement on Monday...not Billboard :(.

I guess I'm a purest.

Yeah, obviously you are a purest, that's why your here with us on macRUMORS.com
:)

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by buffsldr
Yeah, obviously you are a purest, that's why your here with us on macRUMORS.com
:)

Ok, fair enough.

I am a semi-purest. I do want to have an idea of what is coming, but I still want to be a little surprised.

I just want to know some info, to keep me anxious to know it all.

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by RBMaraman
I find it interesting that everyone is assuming that Apple will not offer a monthly unlimited download option. I'm willing to bet that Apple is holding back some information, and hopefully they will offer an unlimited download price.

Apple's probably been working on this service for a year. What did they decide to do almost a year ago? They started a pay service called .Mac, which they promised would be integrated more and more with Apple's iApps. I see .Mac members getting some kind of specials rate, and/or the option for unlimited monthly downloads. Heck, I can even see Apple offering 6 months of free downloads to .Mac members, then a lower price (maybe $0.50 per song) once the 6 months is up.

The way I see it, Apple knew they were going to start a music service the minute they decided to create .Mac. Apple's worked too hard to promote .Mac as the perfect compliment to the Mac, and they would be stupid not to integrate the music service into the program.

Analysts are estimating that Apple is paying the labels 65c per song with 10c in expenses (assuming it is a success). 50c is out of the question.

[bennetsaysargh]

i said it before and ill say it again, someone will find a way to hack the files, and distribute it. thus leading to a big press coverage of it, and it will be more wanted. like iCommune, only without a re-release.

[RBMaraman]

Originally posted by Nebrie
Analysts are estimating that Apple is paying the labels 65c per song with 10c in expenses (assuming it is a success). 50c is out of the question.

That's why I put the word maybe before the price. I wasn't saying that Apple would/should sell the songs for that price. It was just an uninformed thought.

Where did you hear the information on the prices? Do you have a link to an article that makes reference to it? I'm interested in hearing what the financial analysts think about the venture.

[atodd]

I'd say that .Mac users would get, say, maybe 5 or 10 free songs per month. Something like that. Certainly not unlimited downloading.

Or I hope so anyway, cos I've got .Mac :D

I'm really excited about this whole thing. I think it could really help Apple if they become a really major force inthe music industry. They would be the legal Napster! But they have to allow PC users to use the service. If they don't, they're screwed.

[meghop]

Originally posted by RBMaraman
I find it interesting that everyone is assuming that Apple will not offer a monthly unlimited download option. I'm willing to bet that Apple is holding back some information, and hopefully they will offer an unlimited download price.

Apple's probably been working on this service for a year. What did they decide to do almost a year ago? They started a pay service called .Mac, which they promised would be integrated more and more with Apple's iApps. I see .Mac members getting some kind of specials rate, and/or the option for unlimited monthly downloads. Heck, I can even see Apple offering 6 months of free downloads to .Mac members, then a lower price (maybe $0.50 per song) once the 6 months is up.

I think I read somewhere that the royalties that have to be paid to the record companies in order to distribute the music are in the neighborhood of 65 cents a song. Meaning, you have to charge at least that just to break even on each song. I don't remember where I read this, so I may have this wrong. This would explain why unlimited downloading is not a feasible long term option for these online services, and maybe even why the catalogs of music are so small. Anyone able to confirm this number, or I am the victim of some "fuzzy math?" ;)

Ha ha ok, while I was thinking about what to write, some other people posted and verified my 65 cent information, so I feel less crazy now. Hooray!

[MetallicPenguin]

maybe I missed something (most definatly), but is it basically confirmed that the music service will be through .mac, or will so far have we decided that .mac would be an option and you would get a discount, or am I babbling and losing thought of why I am writing this whatsoever: true

[bennetsaysargh]

an idea for buying the music!!

use apple gift cards on a special online store to buy the song and/or album. you could also use a credit card, but the gift card idea is good for people my age.

also, MacMinute is reporting that The Wall Street Journal has leaked information.

http://www.macminute.com/2003/04/25/wsj

My favorite part of it is this

Jobs reportedly said, knowing the Eagles in the past have blocked the use of their songs on such services. Jobs even offered to personally demonstrate the service for Azoff and Eagles singer Don Henley. Earlier this week, the band and AOL Time Warner indeed struck a deal, allowing most of the band's music to be used by Apple's service. "I've said 'no' to all of them," Azoff says of other music services. "But I don't like their services, and I liked [Apple's] product."

In addition to the Eagles, the Apple CEO has signed up the pop band No Doubt, and several other artists who haven't yet allowed their songs to be offered by other online ventures. The new service is expected to have an "exclusives" area for music not available elsewhere.

I am a huge No Doubt fan!!!

[Snowy_River]

I wonder if anyone has thought about the fact that this kind of service could be the equivalent of on-demand publishing for authors. With this kind of a service around, many bands that otherwise might never have had more than a handful of songs produced in their home town might get much greater distribution, without ever needing to sign on with a big record label.

Do you suppose that this might be part of what has made the record labels hesitant to endorse a service like this? Do you suppose that Apple had to promise not to distribute music from a label that was too small? (I'm guessing/hoping that Apple wouldn't have signed a deal with the big-5 saying that the Apple music service would only work with their music, and no other labels.)

Personally, I'm in favor of a band recording a song, calling Apple, and saying 'here's my song', then having Apple post it. Just as I'm in favor of on-demand publishing for authors. It only enriches our culture. But I could see why the big labels might consider it to be a very significant threat.

[amnesiac1984]

I've had mix feelings about this service since I heard about it.

On the one hand, its gonn abe reat to get legal downloads etc etc etc..

On the other hand, think of the long effects on the way music is created and distributed. Does anyone else fear for the loss of the album? Record companies already have control over their artists to a certain extent in that they release stuff that will make money. If most people only buy the really catchy songs that you like immediately from an album, then would they jsut stop producing the more interesting songs that tend to grow on you subconsciously when you listen to an album as background? We all know that songs are popular if they are immediately catchy, but some of my favourite songs i really didn't like at first few listens. If we had had this system for the last 6 years already I would not have discovered about 70% of my favourtie music. I reckon about that percentage of my 7000 strong iTunes library is of songs that I would not download from a service like this, anyone else get what I'm worried about? I mean, in mainstream music in this country its already happening anyway, singles sales are far larger than album sales, mainstream pop artists only really produce albums as a formality and they normally suck, even if you like the singles!!!! I see an album as one whole, like a film, buying one song from an album is like buying one chapter from a DVD for me. Sure there are some scenes that would suck but the film wouldn't work if you only bought the killing and sex scenes for example! lol

[BaghdadBob]

This has been a moajor part of what excites me about this service.

If Apple wants to truly innovate, they will have "Ready-to-go" contracts for artists. I'm sure there are some legal issues they would have to address, but think of the possibility of publishing your music with the simplicity of uploading via secured FTP.

It would be totally sweet.

However, any smart record label will find innovative ways to promote their artists through special deals, like package deals on tracks and albums, ie: buy this album, get these promotional tracks free, buy this track, get this track, etc.

On the issue of copyright protection, what about imbedding a user ID into the file you download, and then only needing to associate that user ID to your copy of iTunes to be able to use the track?

And I have a feeling that streaming music will have a big, big part of this service for the promotional side. Hopefully they will also have their own forums.

Oh, and they should definitely keep track of what songs you own, with some conditional redownload options.

[Hawthorne]

1. Remember "Rip, Mix Burn" ? Apple is known and trusted by the people in the music industry who actually MAKE the music. If a music service is announced, expect to do for music downloads what iTunes and the iPod did for MP-3 players.

2. $1 a song? $10 an album? I'm there. The reason I don't buy albums anymore is so few of them have 12 decent songs that are worth my money. When I ripped my CD collection, I didn't rip every track on every CD, but rather the songs I liked. The collection keeps growing, BTW, as I go back and find songs that I'd forgotten. I can see this happening with this new service as well. I'd purchase the songs I like at first, then go back an fill in the holes. And if the service included out of print albums, a la Janis Ian . com (http://www.janisian.com/article-internet_debacle.html) , this would be something that sets the standard for the industry. Again.

3. If there's a decent discount / special for .Mac members, it may be the thing that forces me to sign up for that service as well.

[Glossybear]

How many people only listen to music on their iPods or Macs?

Personally I do about 75% of my listening this way, but there is still the car, my buddys place, or even on my own stereo system.

How is the service going to deal with these issues.

Sure I could (and do) plug my Powerbook or 'pod into my stereo, or use a ****ty iRock FM thingy when on long drives, but these solutions aren't ELEGANT.

And that is what is so damned great about Apple. Seamless integration of tech and elegance.

I think there will be the anouncement of a new gadget that integrates with users home theater/stereo cabnets. Hopefully somthing that uses wi-fi and rendezvous. I can imagine a sleak box with an LCD that would integrate into the stereo cab and come with a remote. It would do many of the things the TiVo home-media option would do, but with a better UI. It would also be controlable from any other mac on the network. May it would even have a large harddrive to store media ON. Maybe it could even access and D/L stuff off the Music-service.

There has to be SOMETHING new and big since all Applestore employees are required to report on May 2nd for training on a new product.

If Apple is still all about the "Digital Hub" idea, something like this is needed. I mean, what is the digital hub currently made up of? An iMac in the center, and a camera, iPod, Printer, phone/PDA, and uh.... yeah, thats IT. Home entertainment needs to be worked into the digial hub idea.

I'd buy one.

[BaghdadBob]

I think the quality of the tracks that go in between the "hits" depends on the band. I have experienced this "tracks I don't like that grow on me" phenomenon as well, but it has tended to be from fine bands.

All of music will benefit when record companies stop wasting money trying to squeeze blood from a stone and force a crappy prefab band to fill an album. Sometimes a band is only capable of two or three hits. So why waste the money getting them to record an entire album?

On the other hand, good bands with real talent will still record as many good songs as they have in them, and there's also the possibility that they will publish even more music than they would have before, because they are not restrained by the length of a CD.

This may result in even more artistry from recording artists -- we all know a band or two that can just jam at awesome proportions...When I saw Tool in LA they played the two major instrumental tracks on Lateralus at about 175% of original length, and it was utterly awesome...I have a feeling that without time constraints bands like that would publish such sessions -- which are recorded anyway. As well as non-instrumental tracks that wouldn't have made the corporate "album" cut.

Personally, I don't think anyone should have to subject themselves to filler tracks, even if they end up liking them. Only music which comes from an artistic place -- as apposed to corporate requirements -- is worth anything, IMHO.

[BlainKBanquier]

I'm all for the 'album as a whole' concept too, but in the end, it's always up to the listener. If interesting musicians lose interest in creating a collection of songs that work together, I'll assume that whatever they do instead will be cool, too. If Britney wants to just release one megahit every couple months, that's fine too. And if the scheme is as rumored--$0.99/song, $10/album--then as long as there are more than 10 songs, there will a price incentive to go for the whole album versus just a few songs.

If you buy the notion that the concept of an *album* originated with the desire to reproduce performances on demand, then there's no reason people wouldn't want 50 minutes of their favorite band's Appletracks versus the same on CD. And if you think of music as isolated 3.5 minute chunks, it'll work for you too.

I also agree that it'd be way cool if indie bands could just upload an album (and artwork?). The band would probably get a much smaller cut than the major labels per song though. But hey, (potentially global) distribution would definitely be worth Apple's cut of each sale. That'd reduce initial outlay for the band to the cost of recording.

I wouldn't bet on such a utopian system being put in to place on Monday though; probably not until the overall volume of sales makes the majors comfy with some fringe-elements. But hey, they need farm leagues for their rubes.

[ennerseed]

Originally posted by bobme

Maybe with the album download, you get the album art as well. That would be cool!


PLEASE! Cover Art!

I can't believe a style, design, art conscious company, and users, have let the wonderful cover art disappear with our digital music. I really hope this has changed, and it's available for every song.

[BaghdadBob]

I agree. But don't worry:

A: Artistic recording artists will always want some sort of visual art to go with their music because they're...artistic.

B: Prefab bands will have pictures of their beautifullness because...well, because they have no talent.

Maybe with online sales you can have age-specific uncensored album art! Assuming you want 5,000 pictures of Christina Aguilara's naked *** and crotch with every song she releases...given current trends.....and god forbid Tommy Lee come out with a new album.... ***shudder***

ewwwwww....

"GET! GET! GET NAKED!"

[Glossybear]

I just realised how well this system could work for live material.

I think often the cost to the labels to put out a live album is too high, but how cool would it be if they would release a live track or two for certain artists.

It could even be used to support the artist's tour.

Also, B-sides. Ever since the death of the "single" release there has been less and less B-side material out there (with some notable exceptions of course) This type of service would be a great place to showcase an artist's B-sides, live tracks, alt-takes, and other flotsom and jetsom that the consumer can't easily get anymore.

But somehow I doubt the service will support this kind of thing, at least at first.

I wonder what the service is going to be called, so I can stop calling it "the service"

[DaveGee]

Originally posted by RBMaraman
[BBut, do you agree that .Mac integration would be an excellent strategy? My post wasn't about whether or not unlimited downloads will happen (though it does kinda soung that way). It was more about people's opinions on .Mac integration. [/B]

Totally agree... Apple (I'm sure) will find some way to add a bonus for .mac members. (disclaimer I am a .mac member). Heck they could do quite a few things for .mac members.

- Free tracks every now and again
- .mac 1st tracks (for new stuff)
- Free streaming (too costly I'd think - but who knows)

..it's 2am here so forgive me for not thinking up more ideas.. :) But sure Apple will no doubt throw a bone to .mac users.

Dave

[unage85]

Ok this is my first post so don't flame me if i did something wrong or whatever

Seriously, my question is about the paying aspect of this music service. It might be alright for all you peeps with credit cards but what about the poor students who arn't old enough or arn't allowed to use mummy and daddies plastic?

I think this service is targeting the kids who get on their computer and just download songs. Its mainly this demographic who do it because one they don't have money and its so dam easy!

Ok, answer me this: I'm not that familiar with how this service thingy could work but do all u peeps just assume that credit is the way to pay? Please clarify for me :)

[unage85]

Ok this is my first post so don't flame me if i did something wrong or whatever

Seriously, my question is about the paying aspect of this music service. It might be alright for all you peeps with credit cards but what about the poor students who arn't old enough or arn't allowed to use mummy and daddies plastic?

I think this service is targeting the kids who get on their computer and just download songs. Its mainly this demographic who do it because one they don't have money and its so dam easy!

Ok, answer me this: I'm not that familiar with how this service thingy could work but do all u peeps just assume that credit is the way to pay? Please clarify for me :)

[sparks9]

Originally posted by unage85
Ok this is my first post so don't flame me if i did something wrong or whatever

Seriously, my question is about the paying aspect of this music service. It might be alright for all you peeps with credit cards but what about the poor students who arn't old enough or arn't allowed to use mummy and daddies plastic?

I think this service is targeting the kids who get on their computer and just download songs. Its mainly this demographic who do it because one they don't have money and its so dam easy!

Ok, answer me this: I'm not that familiar with how this service thingy could work but do all u peeps just assume that credit is the way to pay? Please clarify for me :)

Flame flame! Wait till monday and see for yourself.

[dongmin]

Originally posted by ennerseed
PLEASE! Cover Art!

I can't believe a style, design, art conscious company, and users, have let the wonderful cover art disappear with our digital music. I really hope this has changed, and it's available for every song.

No one has yet mentioned the possibility of getting mp4 videos along with the audio track. Could be a nice bonus on 'album' downloads. Or maybe you'll be able to purchase videos seperately.

[sXe]

i don't think an apple music service is coming out. doesn't seem viable to me. i personally think it's a new iPod. but if i'm wrong...i'm wrong.

[Flowbee]

Originally posted by sXe
i don't think an apple music service is coming out. doesn't seem viable to me. i personally think it's a new iPod. but if i'm wrong...i'm wrong.

I'm with sXe. Where is everyone getting the idea that a new music service will be announced? I think they'll be announcing a mouse/headphones combo. :rolleyes:

:D :confused: :eek:

[BaghdadBob]

Yes! The rotary wheel is actually volume control. Now why didn't I think of that first?

Next thing you know people are gonna start talking about Apple partnering up with IBM for their processors. HA! Apple and IBM, talk about your odd couples...

[MasterX (OSiX)]

IF Apple has a music service (my bet is yes) I'm thinking 128/160 kbps AAC audio with DRM which wouldn't yet be enabled outside of iTunes 4 (prevents ripping AAC CDs onto another mac, but not playing, that kind of thing).

I'm a strong believer that Apple will be using at least 2 kinds of services in AppleTracks. I'm not sure how yet, but it seems to me that it's likely that there would be a few kinds of music you could get. I was brain storming this, so here goes:
1) For pay music. $1/song, $10/CD. Tracks how many songs per CD you have, offers you that much off upgrading to the whole CD (for example you buy 3 tracks on a 15 track CD, then you can get the other 13 tracks for only $7)

2) Low-pay songs. Songs that are on CDs in stores, but for whatever reason are less money, like smaller publishing labels, artists that have cool contracts and like apple, songs that suck, etc.

3) Free music. Perhaps either streaming on demand of music (Apple-branded internet radio with lots of main stream stuff, per-song on demand. Cool idea i think). Free songs thanks to artists (promo track to buy a whole AppleTracks CD online).

The other idea for this would be a garage band, underground band, unsigned band etc signs a deal with Apple. For hosting fees (say $100/month maybe) Apple will host your music on this service. The artist could set a price and try to pedal their music via iTunes for pay music. Then Apple would track the popular unheard of music and make it easier for everyone to find it (since we all know that there's a lot of crappy music out there).

Another idea I had, would you be opposed to Apple putting in ad banners on part of the music system? I mean think about it for a while. Sherlock had ads as I recall. Apple was cool though, they put in their own ads too, and they never allowed flashy "click the money and win $100" crap. To me if I could have $0.75/song instead of $1/song i might do it.

To answer the previous question, AAC Audio is amazing. At 128 kbps (less than the iTunes default) you get music which sounds better than a CD on iTunes (how can this be? well iTunes isn't a $3000 Denon CD player with dual super linear processors and 24/192khz Burr Brown... sorry audiophile rant) I also like that at 128kbps Apple can change the iPod from 1000/2000/4000 songs in your pocket to 1250/3000/6000 (or whatever, im not doing the math for you people). Now if they go to 30/40gb they might be able to make some fun claims like 10,000 songs in your pocket, which to be honest with you, is a lot more than i have. well 1pm EST tomorrow we'll all know.

[MasterX (OSiX)]

I forgot. My ideas on paying. I think it'll use .mac and 1-click as the preferred service. But i also think it's likely that apple lets you set up something for people my age, almost able to get a credit card. Perhaps they'll make a deal with Visa Buxx people (credit card for kids pretty much). That or the parents could set up a system with Apple which limits kids to $20/month in music, that kind of thing. I can't think of any way that under-18 people can get music online, then again, a lot of 15 year olds can use amazon.com so it'll probably work one way or another.

Who thinks the next iPod will include external hardware support, like a bluetooth headphone, iPod to iPod sharing of non-roalty music and or files, CD-RW support, etc? I'd like to burn a CD off my iPod. Ok i dont have an iPod. you know what i mean, go to a friend's house, plug into their external player. That or a mic, i'd like a mic. or a keyboard. ok now im ranting. shut up nick. will do.

[kcmac]

by baghdad bob,
Yes! The rotary wheel is actually volume control. Now why didn't I think of that first?

I would like that, especially if it could be toggled/activated back and forth to also act as a scroll wheel.

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by kcmac
by baghdad bob,


I would like that, especially if it could be toggled/activated back and forth to also act as a scroll wheel.

Actually, thinking of it seriously, it would be nice to have more volume control. With some of the preset levels out there, I have the choice between mute and loud.

I miss the analog control I had with my old monitor (not that I miss my old 6360).

Now that this possibility has been broached, a more analog-style control like this would be useful for way more than scrolling. Think monitor controls, speed, transparency...uh...blending options...filters...........OK, help, I'm out of ideas....I bet all you videoheads can help me out here.

I bet alternator keys would all of a sudden become a blessing if they related to a bunch of wheel commands. Hmmm...damn those wily weasels at Apple.

Hey! DJ Scratching!

Edit: This isn't the new mouse forum! WTF -- how did this start anyway?

[JGowan]

About the CD art...

In case Apple doesn't do it; get Konfabulator and use the "Album Cover" Widget... does a great job.

About Credit Card payment...

There's hundreds of millions of credit cards out there. Sounds like a good plan. If a kid wants various songs, what's stopping him from using his allowance to pay his parents and have them download the songs he wants on their plastic? That's how I would do it in that situation.

[MasterX (OSiX)]

You'd be suprised how few times parents like to take cash for access to their credit. The hassle I suppose?

[indar20]

Originally posted by Flowbee
I'm with sXe. Where is everyone getting the idea that a new music service will be announced? I think they'll be announcing a mouse/headphones combo. :rolleyes:

:D :confused: :eek:

"our source was the new york times"

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/04/28/technology/28APPL.html

ps. amon tobin rocks away

[BaghdadBob]

Originally posted by MasterX (OSiX)
You'd be suprised how few times parents like to take cash for access to their credit. The hassle I suppose?

My theory on this is that kids can be set up with a debit account. Pre-set spending limit, one-time (per balance) charge, small hassle -- especially with "one-click" buying tied into it...like "Click!" there's $20 bucks to your account kiddo. Don't spend it all on the Beatles again.