Poll: What's keeping you from using the iTunes Music Store?

[MacRumors]

Vote: Poll: What's keeping you from using the iTunes Music Store? (http://www.macpolls.com/?poll_id=176&ref=forums.macrumors.com)

[celaurie]

Interesting that so far the lack of international support is the main crux for possible users. Perhaps it's time, despite legalities and the like, that Apple held off until such 'bugs' were ironed out so that it could internationally release new software and products...

After all the internet is about making the worls more accesible to all.

Just a thought.

Chris

[mac15]

international support, it seems apple have a severe case of 'anti-australianism'. they've had this for years. Sherlock seems to still have it too.

[celaurie]

Originally posted by mac15
international support, it seems apple have a severe case of 'anti-australianism'. they've had this for years. Sherlock seems to still have it too.

Tell me about it. We heard about how wonderful the new Sherlock was for months before it appeared and then when it hit the UK, it didn't have half the features shown in the press...

However, you can ask to see the US content. For all the use it is...

Chris, feeling slightly 'left-out' again.

[Snowy_River]

You know, this is one of those polls that should have 'More Than One of the Above'


I'm using it.


No. Not yet.


Doesn't have the music I like/want


Yes, for the most part.


Too Expensive (or I prefer P2P)


This seems to me to be two separate answers. While it's not too expensive for music that I really want, I'd rather not fritter away money on music that 'oh, I'd kind of like to have that...'. However, I don't prefer P2P.


Quality is not good enough


I'm so audio obsessed that this matters that much to me.


I don't use Mac OS X


No. I do.


I live outside the US


Nope. Arizona.


It doesn't work (there are serious bugs)


I love the fact that there have been no votes for this. Well done Apple.


I like owning physical CDs


Yes. I do. And while I know that I can burn songs and or albums that I download, it's really not quite the same.


Don't have a credit card


Can't claim that one...


Other


Yes, there are other reasons why I haven't used the iTMS yet. However, I'm not going to get into them just at the moment.

[mim]

Current Polling...

Using it: 13%
Not using because don't live in US: 58%!

Someone should post this to Apple.

Although maybe it's just that time of night. All good yankies are tucked up in bed.

[Fender2112]

I'm one of the few that still has not made the move to OS X. The computer I use has a G3 upgrade card but is not compatible with OS X. Hopefully Apple will announce 970's this summer and get the price points where they need to be. Then the only reason I'll have for not upgrading is the wife. I can fix that. But there are laws against it. :D

[davy the bunny]

I can't stand that I just can't get the music that I want. . . Most of it is the same crud that we avoid on the radio. . . Where are the indie labels?

[MacFan25]

I would use it, but I don't have a credit card.

[Anne]

Originally posted by mim
Current Polling...

Using it: 13%
Not using because don't live in US: 58%!

Someone should post this to Apple.

Although maybe it's just that time of night. All good yankies are tucked up in bed.


While I agree that Apple should make the service available outside of the US (and believe that they will do so), this is hardly a scientific poll. I'm sure that vastly more non-users took the poll than users. Just look at the wording of the question....

[mactastic]

Originally posted by davy the bunny
I can't stand that I just can't get the music that I want. . . Most of it is the same crud that we avoid on the radio. . . Where are the indie labels?

I believe they are coming, Jobs was quoted as saying that all their energy (read legal team efforts) had gone into getting the big 5 onboard to make this a legitamate offering to Joe/Jane Public. He also said that the indies and smaller labels are welcome and will be getting visits from apples legal staff to work out the arrangements. I'm with you here, I want more choices than when I listen to the ClearChannel radio network stations. As a side note, I wonder if iTMS could read your zip code like sherlock does, and offer up some local bands depending on your location?
My guess is that a year from now we have a much better selection to choose from. Crossing my fingers.

[arn]

Originally posted by mim
Current Polling...

Using it: 13%
Not using because don't live in US: 58%!

Someone should post this to Apple.

Although maybe it's just that time of night. All good yankies are tucked up in bed.

Yeah... I always have to throw in an answer that isn't really the point of the question... because people will always want to answer the poll and I don't want people to have to choose a wrong answer.

The "using it" should simply be disregarded and subtracted from the total and then figure out why people aren't using it.

arn

[gerror]

I'm already on eMusic. Pay $15 per month. for unlimited downloading without any restrictions. Also, I don't like most music from the majors.

[makkii]

I have this fealing that Recording Industry Association of Japan is not going to permit this....

[wdlove]

I voted not using Mac OS X, which is the truth. Also I have so many CD's not sure that I have a need to download music. I'm hoping that it is successful for Apple!

[pgwalsh]

I have two Reasons
1.) They don't have the music I like. Well most of what they have I already have on CD.

2) My old mac doesn't have a cd burner and I I don't feel like buying one for it.

If they get some independent labels in the future I can see myself using it for sure. I like techno dj mixes and they don't have much, if anything. I'll buy a new Mac this year and then I'll start using it.

[AmbitiousLemon]

I chose too expensive, but really there are several reasons.

at $1 per song this is more expensive than I am used to paying for music. Physical CDs are cheaper and don't have any of the limitations.

But I also have concerns about the quality of the songs. Most reviews of the music service I have read have mentioned that the audio quality is ot what the reviewers are used to with mp3s. Most people I know who listen to mp3s rip at 160-256. So although a 128 AAC will sound way better than a 128 MP3, most people dont rip mp3s at 128. Most reviwes have mentioned that they would even be willing to pay more if there was an offer of high quality rips.

The store is really nice looking (though lacking in features compared to places like allmusic.com or amazon.com) but the poor selection, low sound quality, and high price discourages me from buying anything. To me a digital file should cost much less, not more, than its physical counterpart.

[iAlan]

Originally posted by makkii
I have this fealing that Recording Industry Association of Japan is not going to permit this....

Agree with you 100% on that point.

[-hh]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
You know, this is one of those polls that should have 'More Than One of the Above'

Agreed! I should probably suggest a Poll on how much we like One-Option Polls :D


You know, this is one of those polls that should have 'More Than One of the Above'

Option 1: I'm using it.

Nope.

Option 2: Doesn't have the music I like/want

What, no PDQ Bach? :) Actually, I haven't even bothered to look to see what's available yet, nor do I expect to do so for the next few months.


Option 3: Too Expensive (or I prefer P2P)

This seems to me to be two separate answers. While it's not too expensive for music that I really want, I'd rather not fritter away money on music that 'oh, I'd kind of like to have that...'. However, I don't prefer P2P.

Good observations.

My observation is that for a dozen or so tracks, I could have gone out and bought the physical CD for the same price, which I'd find advantageous.

So I'd say that at $0.99/track, its too expensive. I haven't seen any obvious "quantity discount" (ie, buy the entire CD) offering to help out in this regards.

Overall, the business model would tend to say that the obviating of their expense of manufacturing and distributing a physical CD will result in a cost savings that should be passed along to the consumer. I would personally expect a non-physical CD's worth of music to be no more than 50% of the price that I can go out and buy the physical copy.


Option 4: Quality is not good enough

I'm so audio obsessed that this matters that much to me.

I'm very audio-appreciative, but I also recognize that I have some hearing loss, plus many applications (riding in the car, etc) have so much background noise and poor playing environment that pragmatically, CD quality is good enough, most of the time.


Option 5: I don't use Mac OS X

This is the one I happened to vote for, since it is the necessary enabler that I have to meet before I can even consider moving forwards.


Option 6: I live outside the US

Doesn't apply to me, but I was interested to notice how many of the responses to date voted for this.


Option 7: It doesn't work (there are serious bugs)

I love the fact that there have been no votes for this. Well done Apple.

IMO, its too early to tell. I haven't used it, so I have to reserve judgement.


Option 8: I like owning physical CDs

My comment here would be twofold. The first is that I'm going to want a hard backup no matter what, and buying a physical CD in the first place does this for me. The second is that my current sound systems are still set up for vinyl, tapes and CD's, so I still havent' made the jump to MP3's in any form. For this particular technology, I'm a late adopter.


Option 9: Don't have a credit card

Can't claim that one...

Same here. But I can see how its an issue for younger folks.


Option 10: Other

I almost picked this one, under the rationale of "several of the above".


-hh

[gopher]

A better means of purchasing by credit card that is more secure needs to be implemented before I'd purchase from the store. Apple could setup its own separate server that is accessible only to the mail-order store and you could then call in with your credit card number after making your selection, and then they release the songs to your Apple ID. That way no credit card number gets passed over the internet.

I would purchase from the store if the samples were streaming of the entire piece so I could hear it from beginning to end and then decide if I wanted to purchase the actual MP3.

I would like to be able to know that the MP3 I purchase will work whether or not the store maintains its operation after the 1 year is up.

And it isn't clear whether the entire Album is for sale on those where not all the tracks are sampled. If the entire Album isn't for sale, it should be clear that this is the case.

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by Fender2112
I'm one of the few that still has not made the move to OS X. The computer I use has a G3 upgrade card but is not compatible with OS X. Hopefully Apple will announce 970's this summer and get the price points where they need to be. Then the only reason I'll have for not upgrading is the wife. I can fix that. But there are laws against it. :D

Have you considered trying XPostFacto? It allows many unsupported Macs to successfully load and run OS X. Just a thought...

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by AmbitiousLemon
I chose too expensive, but really there are several reasons.

at $1 per song this is more expensive than I am used to paying for music. Physical CDs are cheaper and don't have any of the limitations.
...
To me a digital file should cost much less, not more, than its physical counterpart.

I agree. I hope that they will drop the price over time. But, at the same time, if this kind of 'music-on-demand' starts to replace CDs, etc., then CDs will become harder to find and may start being more expensive.

Who knows. We can only wait and see.

BTW, I like you 'tar. Joe v. Volcano... :D

[QuiteSure]

I have over 350 cds. There's very little of the music that I know I like that's available on the music store that I really feel compelled to buy. But I don't have the new "exclusive" Jewel tune and I don't have any Dixie Chicks. I love the idea that I can just download a few songs after getting a sample. I don't want to invest $15 to buy a whole album to see if I like the Dixie Chicks. It cost me less than $1. I will try all their available songs and build my own album, which will have far greater value than buying one of theirs.

I am upset though that I can't get Don McLean's "American Pie" without downloading the whole album for $11.99. In fairness to Don, I did listen to most of the songs to see if I might like them; but only maybe 2 or 3 besides "AP". So that is one of my complaints about the service.

But for the most part, it's great for a fan like me, who wants to experience new music, but without committing to whole albums.

[BigJayhawk]

--
Quoted:

So I'd say that at $0.99/track, its too expensive. I haven't seen any obvious "quantity discount" (ie, buy the entire CD) offering to help out in this regards.
--

Uhh, have you LOOKED at the iTunes Store? Or, have you just read the headlines about 99 cents per song??

If the artist/label allows it, you can buy THE WHOLE CD for just $9.99 -- or -- 99 cents per song whichever is LESS unless the album is considered to be a double album (i.e. comes on two CD's and usually costs twice as much at the store as well.)

--
Quoted:

A better means of purchasing by credit card that is more secure needs to be implemented before I'd purchase from the store. Apple could setup its own separate server that is accessible only to the mail-order store and you could then call in with your credit card number after making your selection, and then they release the songs to your Apple ID. That way no credit card number gets passed over the internet.
--

Hmmm . . . Hmmm . . . Hmmm . . . Wow. I still can't get over this one. 128bit encrypted ON A MAC NO LESS is so much more secure than handing your credit card to someone at the cash register, gas station, etc. etc. that it's NOT EVEN FUNNY.

As for CALLING YOUR CARD IN . . .

1st off, it AMAZES ME how many that are wary of the internet are willng to call in their credit card on their "SECURE" CORDLESS PHONE at home! (Anyone have a $100 scanner?) In fact, a cellular phone or a WIRED phone can be hacked into so much easier than high level encryption on a computer! (Ask the government. They've known how to crack phones FOREVER. Why do you think that exporting computer encryption hardware/software to certain foreign countries is illegal in many cases?)

2nd, ONCE AGAIN, as someone who has managed a Catalog Call Center (for a top notch company -- Disney), I can tell you that giving your card number to a 19 year old college student on the phone is still LESS SECURE than a modern computer connection. The bottom line is this . . . COMPUTERS DO NOT STEAL C/C #'s AND ORDER PIZZAS!!! HUMANS DO! Keep your C/C #'s out of the hands of HUMANS if you are this concerned. Now -- GO -- SHEW -- BUY APPLE SONGS! FEEL FREE!!!

Anyway, I'm broke (very temporarily) so I marked "I'm using it anyway." As for the CD's are cheaper argument. If I want a double album GREATEST HITS CD that has historical data, CD liners, and Actual CD's with 80%-90% songs that I LIKE, then I can drop into Wal-mart or something.

HOWEVER, there is NO CURRENT SOURCE as easy AND CHEAP for d/l'ing 30 songs from multiple albums and having YOUR OWN ultimate GREATEST HITS CD! This is $30 that the music industry has never been able to get their hands on (and maybe $2-$3 that the artists can actually receive now!)

[deaxes]

DRM! Digital Rights Management!

[Bob Knob]

The reason non-US users can't have the same access to the music is completely due to copyright issues that Apple has no control over. I don't know what the story is with sherlock, but in this case Apple is not the one holding things up.

[JonD]

I want Drive-Thru Records. That is all.

I also want Columbia Records to **** off. Have you guys noticed, all CDs on Columbia can only be purchased by the track? I was going to buy the new System of a Down CD, but NOOO, I have to pay like $18 to get the whole thing by track because they are on Columbia. Stupid!

[scem0]

not enough benifits for too much money.

I can get practically the same thing for freee. :)

[docpsycho]

It is interesting that quality is in the toilet on this one!

Then why do you spend more money on a higher quality computer (ie Macintosh), compared to a cheaper and usually inferior clone box (ie windoze)?

This is a sign of american advertising pushin quantity that quality.

My beef with ignorant people and the RIAA has always been the added costs that i pay for as in:

1) rehab for artist and music execs
2) paying for cocaine habits of the above mentioned :mad:
3) low quality recording (I want HDCD, SACD or DVD-A) :D
4) britney spears bubble gum crap music :o
5) insulting my capacity to think . . .(see above) :eek:
6) wimps who wonder why my sound equipment sounds better than thiers :rolleyes:
7) cheap bastard who spend $150 on a home theater "system" from BEST BUY and wonder why it sounds like crap (see above) :p
8) why apple is draggen their heels on better sound capabilities (my old 8500 had rca jacks)
9) Why ignorant people think that the word "DIGITAL" means that it is automatically better when it is not.
10) the sound that we hear and our brains comprehend is an analog sine wave and not bits and bytes. (come on damn it get a clue)
11) paying for a higher price for a lower quality recording.
12) attacking pirating here in the US when the Bigger Problem lies overseas (HONG KONG)
13) finally, not knowing what the definition of "is" is!

whelp that takes care of my rant for today!

[greenstork]

Call me unethical but I have no beef with sharing my music with friends. Music is organic and not designed to be owned. I'd get into a whole philosophical discussion about intellectual property rights and such but that could take all day and you don't want to hear it anyway.

When I but a CD, I enjoy being able to share that music with friends, and them with me. I don't share it with thousands of people (like P2P networks) but I do like to exchange music with a small group of buddies. I don't like the three licenses because I want my licenses for myself in case I do buy a laptop or play these songs on a work computer.

I am waiting for a program like dropstuff (stuffit) where I can throw my songs from iTunes Music Store into it and they come out as AAC files free of the DRM. Until that time I won't use the service because I don't want restrictions on sharing my music with a small group of people.

If the record industry and Apple wanted me to buy music off their service, they would have priced it at $0.20 a song and $2 an album and they would still be making 50% profit on every song. I mean let's be realistic, once the song exists on the servers there is very little cost to sell it besides marketing. It's not like a CD which has production costs. And the expense to a record company for a CD is only $2 which includes artist royalties, production, marketing, distribution, etc. Don't even get me started on how the record company is a bunch of rotten leeches, that's a whole different thread.

I'm not that upset about the cost and this is really not what's preventing me from using the service but I do think $0.99 is a little greedy but the record industry has been that way for years.

[Nebrie]

Originally posted by greenstork
Call me unethical but I have no beef with sharing my music with friends. Music is organic and not designed to be owned. I'd get into a whole philosophical discussion about intellectual property rights and such but that could take all day and you don't want to hear it anyway.

When I but a CD, I enjoy being able to share that music with friends, and them with me. I don't share it with thousands of people (like P2P networks) but I do like to exchange music with a small group of buddies. I don't like the three licenses because I want my licenses for myself in case I do buy a laptop or play these songs on a work computer.

I am waiting for a program like dropstuff (stuffit) where I can throw my songs from iTunes Music Store into it and they come out as AAC files free of the DRM. Until that time I won't use the service because I don't want restrictions on sharing my music with a small group of people.

If the record industry and Apple wanted me to buy music off their service, they would have priced it at $0.20 a song and $2 an album and they would still be making 50% profit on every song. I mean let's be realistic, once the song exists on the servers there is very little cost to sell it besides marketing. It's not like a CD which has production costs. And the expense to a record company for a CD is only $2 which includes artist royalties, production, marketing, distribution, etc. Don't even get me started on how the record company is a bunch of rotten leeches, that's a whole different thread.

I'm not that upset about the cost and this is really not what's preventing me from using the service but I do think $0.99 is a little greedy but the record industry has been that way for years.

Step 1: Figure out how to get a job
Step 2: Get a job

I love how people act as though they are the authority on pricing and profit yet they have no clue how much stuff costs. Especially the people who think bandwidth is free.

They may be leeches, but you're no better.

[greenstork]

Originally posted by Nebrie
Step 1: Figure out how to get a job
Step 2: Get a job

I love how people act as though they are the authority on pricing and profit yet they have no clue how much stuff costs. Especially the people who think bandwidth is free.

They may be leeches, but you're no better.

I have a job smart guy, and if you'd research the actual expenses in producing a CD maybe you'd get a clue.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that downloading music over the internet is far cheaper than producing CD's, shipping, inventory, and managing distribution channels. Why do you think the trend in all business is away from bricks-and-mortar stores? I'll answer that, because it's far cheaper to do business online. Bandwith expenses or not, it's still cheaper.

If you think I'm a leech for sharing music with friends, I'd say you're a hypocrite. I don't know one person who hasn't burned a CD for a friend. You have a right to your opinion, it is technically illegal, but it doesn't make it wrong IMO. It's a whole intellectual property rights discussion and judging from your comments, it's obviously over your head.

[arn]

Originally posted by greenstork
I have a job smart guy, and if you'd research the actual expenses in producing a CD maybe you'd get a clue.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that downloading music over the internet is far cheaper than producing CD's, shipping, inventory, and managing distribution channels.

I see this arguement _all the time_ and yet it doesn't make any sense.

The cost of the CD/distribution is irrelevant. If you were buying it for the physical CD itself --- I can tell you a number of places where you can get blank CD's for $0 after rebate.

Obviously, you are buying the music... which is more intangible.

In an extreme example - it's like complaining that a Picasso's canvas + paint only costs like $20 in raw materials... why do they sell them for $100,000?

Please don't argue the details of that specific analogy... all it is is an analogy.

The bottom line is that you, personally, don't feel a song is worth $0.99.

I personally don't feel a Rolex watch is worth the extra $$... so I buy a $20 watch... and live with it. The only difference is that it's far easier to copy songs than it is to copy a Rolex.

arn

[greenstork]

Originally posted by arn
I see this arguement _all the time_ and yet it doesn't make any sense.

The cost of the CD/distribution is irrelevant. If you were buying it for the physical CD itself --- I can tell you a number of places where you can get blank CD's for $0 after rebate.

Obviously, you are buying the music... which is more intangible.

In an extreme example - it's like complaining that a Picasso's canvas + paint only costs like $20 in raw materials... why do they sell them for $100,000?

Please don't argue the details of that specific analogy... all it is is an analogy.

The bottom line is that you, personally, don't feel a song is worth $0.99.

I personally don't feel a Rolex watch is worth the extra $$... so I buy a $20 watch... and live with it. The only difference is that it's far easier to copy songs than it is to copy a Rolex.

arn

arn, I agree with you about the cost of the music which is why I have so much trouble paying $0.99 a song. It's not like th artist is getting that money, they are only making pennies on that $0.99. That money goes to big fat cats at record companies and to putting Britney Spears in Pepsi ads. If I could go to an artist's website and download the song for $0.15, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I had that option for the music that I liked, I'd pay for everything and I do pay for a lot already. My problem is with the record industry, and the claim that they OWN the music which frankly makes no sense to me.

The reason that I cite costs of distribution, production, etc. is because this is what a record company exec would cite if I was having this argument with them. However, I would tend to agree that you can't put a price on music. I can however, put a price on making the record companies richer, and $0.99 is too expensive IMO.

[arn]

Well...

You know... there's nothing stopping an artist from recording/editing/serving their own songs on the internet... so, have you bought a bunch of songs from MP3.com? They have or had a program like that - where people can post their own stuff and I believe get a significantly higher %.

the problem is - you don't know about them.

Marketing takes $$$. And those costs make up the costs that you are paying. I hear people blame the record companies all the time - and they're not angels or anything -- but up until now, they have been necessary.

It's possible in the future, that as digital production costs go down, server costs go down... that an individual band may be able to fund their own online distribution... as well as marketing. But you're not being realistic yet.

arn

[MCroft]

Originally posted by arn
Marketing takes $$$. And those costs make up the costs that you are paying. I hear people blame the record companies all the time - and they're not angels or anything -- but up until now, they have been necessary.

arn
Indeed, Marketing is the only leg left of the original three that the record companies built themselves on (the first two, production expertise and physical distribution, are not as relevant these days). It's why their model is shaky. There are a lot more artists who will forego marketing than who could have forgone marketing, production, and distribution. Especially when the cost of marketing is that making a hit record pays less than working at 7-11 (http://www.negativland.com/albini.html).

I wrote about this last year (http://www.whiterose.org/michael/blog/archives/000493.html#000493), and it needs to be updated for the impact of the apple store, but I'm not ready to make any judgments yet.

Who knows? Maybe part of the impact of the iTunes Music Store will be the renaissance of the single, produced for a fraction of the cost of an album and released on a different schedule. The current paradigm is broken, but it's not clear yet what the replacement will be.

[arn]

Originally posted by MCroft

I wrote about this last year (http://www.whiterose.org/michael/blog/archives/000493.html#000493), and it needs to be updated for the impact of the apple store, but I'm not ready to make any judgments yet.

Who knows? Maybe part of the impact of the iTunes Music Store will be the renaissance of the single, produced for a fraction of the cost of an album and released on a different schedule. The current paradigm is broken, but it's not clear yet what the replacement will be.

Well... I did say "until now" :)

The paradigm is changing... dramatically.

I'm not saying the record companies will be the force they have been in the future. Nor will they necessarily be as necessary.

That being said... Apple may become the next pseudo-record label. If a band can actually produce their own music... what's to stop Apple from "signing them"? Apple could promote them on the store... and voila! :)

We'll see... I bet the record labels are a bit nervous about it too...

arn

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by greenstork
arn, I agree with you about the cost of the music which is why I have so much trouble paying $0.99 a song. It's not like th artist is getting that money, they are only making pennies on that $0.99. That money goes to big fat cats at record companies and to putting Britney Spears in Pepsi ads. If I could go to an artist's website and download the song for $0.15, I'd do it in a heartbeat. If I had that option for the music that I liked, I'd pay for everything and I do pay for a lot already. My problem is with the record industry, and the claim that they OWN the music which frankly makes no sense to me.

The reason that I cite costs of distribution, production, etc. is because this is what a record company exec would cite if I was having this argument with them. However, I would tend to agree that you can't put a price on music. I can however, put a price on making the record companies richer, and $0.99 is too expensive IMO.

So, tell me, if you could go to an artist's website and download a song directly from the artist for $0.99 would you? Then you'd know that all of the money was going to the artist.

Or, what if Apple openned up their upload service, so that anyone could upload their music to the server. If the price was still $0.99, but you knew that $0.34 was going to Apple, and the other $0.65 was going directly to the artist, then would you buy?

I'll add one more layer to this, just to make a point. Suppose you knew that the artist had made an agreement with a recording studio, because the artist couldn't afford to rent studio space outright, that $0.30 out of the $0.65 that they got would go directly to the studio. Would you buy it then?

I guess, I'm asking to what extent is the price really the issue. Or is the real issue the music industry 'big fat cats'? But, there is a tricky line to draw, as Arn has already pointed out, between when the amount going to the artist is okay, and when it's not.

Personnally, I feel that it is important to support artists that you like, and, for now, at least, that also (in most cases) means supporting the industry. However, we may well be on the verge of music-on-demand that could change all of that.

Isn't it fun watching history happen?

[j33pd0g]

Doesn't have the music I like/want quite yet... bought 1 song, and one album though...

The thing I like about this is that with the preview before DL that the iTunes music store provides, it may force artists to make better albums instead of just the 1 good song strategically placed between numerous filler crap songs. That is a trend that would benefit us all.

[centauratlas]

My response is:

"I am using it, but not as much as I would if the quality (e.g. bit rate) was better"

I've gotten 4 songs and all were ok, but I can tell enough of a difference to bother me....I've got around 6700 songs in iTunes at the moment and I would prefer to replace buying the CDs, but the quality is not enough.

It is even more apparent compared to SACDs...

I LOVE everything about it except the bit rate (or perhaps it is poor encoding at that bit rate). Whatever the case, the quality is somewhat too low for me.

[Billicus]

Originally posted by deaxes
DRM! Digital Rights Management!

Apple is being so linient with the Rights that you shouldn't ever even notice them! As for me, I voted "Don't have a Credit Card," because I can honestly say that I don't. After all, how many 16 year olds to you know with a Credit Card?

[wdlove]

Originally posted by scem0
not enough benifits for too much money.

I can get practically the same thing for freee. :)

Does getting the music free, also mean legal? ;)

[howard]

Originally posted by arn
[B
In an extreme example - it's like complaining that a Picasso's canvas + paint only costs like $20 in raw materials... why do they sell them for $100,000?

arn [/B]

wow arn i like that analogy a lot


anyone pick up the latest mix magazine?? the entire thing is about the changing music industry. some amazing reading. its all very exciting to see where this will go.

I do hope that in the end...the artists get what they deserve. and that in particular MORE artists get what they deserve. no just the trendy ones. i think with the internet this could happen

[edenwaith]

Originally posted by Fender2112
Then the only reason I'll have for not upgrading is the wife. I can fix that. But there are laws against it. :D

Sounds like an old case of upgrading Wife 1.0 to Girlfriend 2.0. :)

Personally, I didn't find much difficulty jumping from OS 9 to OS X. I first started with the beta, and it was a little odd at first, trying to do things like OS 9, such as put items in the Apple Menu. And there originally were no drives on the desktop, so when I closed all of my Finder windows, I was a bit at a loss to figure out how to open up a new Finder window. But in the end, I think there was about 5 minutes of exploration and learning what I could and could not do.

[edenwaith]

I haven't used this service yet, mainly because of the same problem I had with CD clubs like Columbia House. Poor selection in music. I did a search for a few artists I never remembered seeing in Columbia House, such as Metallica and Weird Al. The iTunes store had neither of them. I even searched for AC/DC...nothing, not even Back In Black.

It is curious that some more popular artists are not listed at all. But this is my main reason why I haven't downloaded any songs yet...there just aren't the artists I want. And of the few songs which might have been nice to have heard, the song might have been so long that I was required to purchase the entire album. If some smaller labels (z.B. SPV Steamhammer or Spitfire), then perhaps I will be able to make more use out of this service.

Why is iTMS only for U.S.? Are there difficulties in converting money from one currency to another? Or is there a legal difficulty with the record companies outside (including Canada???) of the U.S.?

[OutThere]

os 9:rolleyes:

[chanoc]

I prefer my Mp3 and ACC at 320kbps, and will continue to buy pysical CDs until the itunes music can offer better ripps. Another option is to use Virtual PC, and get on WinMX (OpenNap) where there is lots of CD ripps being shared at high-quality bitrate Mp3. Anyways, it should be up to the user of itunes what bitrate they can buy.

[dkeninitz]

Limited selection of anything but the most current and contemporary stuff far as I can tell.

[tazo]

Originally posted by chanoc
I prefer my Mp3 and ACC at 320kbps, and will continue to buy pysical CDs until the itunes music can offer better ripps. Another option is to use Virtual PC, and get on WinMX (OpenNap) where there is lots of CD ripps being shared at high-quality bitrate Mp3. Anyways, it should be up to the user of itunes what bitrate they can buy.

WINMX sucks for downloading. i mean honestly. use kazaa if u wanna download. you can look for highquality copies of songs, and you dont have to deal with queue like u do with winmx.

what is stopping me from using it more is sheer lack of cash.

[chanoc]

Originally posted by tazo
WINMX sucks for downloading. i mean honestly. use kazaa if u wanna download. you can look for highquality copies of songs, and you dont have to deal with queue like u do with winmx.


I would use Kazaa, but I could not get it to work on Virtual PC. :rolleyes:
I leave WinMX on for days on end, and get killer ripps (I only accept 320kbps.).
Still, I buy second-hand CDs on Amazon or Ebay, ripp the music, and resell the CDs. Downloading music "illegally" has caused me to buy more CDs.:)

[wdlove]

Originally posted by edenwaith
Sounds like an old case of upgrading Wife 1.0 to Girlfriend 2.0. :)

Personally, I didn't find much difficulty jumping from OS 9 to OS X. I first started with the beta, and it was a little odd at first, trying to do things like OS 9, such as put items in the Apple Menu. And there originally were no drives on the desktop, so when I closed all of my Finder windows, I was a bit at a loss to figure out how to open up a new Finder window. But in the end, I think there was about 5 minutes of exploration and learning what I could and could not do.

My wife has been after me to upgrade to Mac OS X. I can be stubborn! :o