PDA

View Full Version : Pepsi to Team Up with Amazon for Superbowl MP3 Giveaway?




MacRumors
Nov 30, 2007, 04:16 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

Pepsi and Amazon are negotiating a deal to give away up to 1 billion songs during a music-giveaway promotion that will launch during the 2008 Superbowl on February 3rd, according to Billboard Magazine (http://www.billboard.biz/bbbiz/content_display/industry/e3i6efb69eb2243cb842be35f0eab40082d). The deal is reminiscent of the early iTunes-Pepsi promotional giveaways that were launched at the 2004 (http://www.macrumors.com/2003/10/16/apple-and-pepsi-giving-away-100-million-songs/) and 2005 (http://www.macrumors.com/2005/01/17/new-pepsi-itunes-promotion/) Superbowls.

In the upcoming promotion, however, Amazon will replace Apple as the music distributor, providing MP3s from their DRM-free Music Store (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/redirect?link_code=ur2&camp=1789&tag=weeno&creative=9325&path=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.amazon.com%2Fb%3F%255Fencoding%3DUTF8%26node%3D163856011%26pf_rd_m%3DATVPDKIKX 0DER%26pf_rd_s%3Dleft-nav-1%26pf_rd_r%3D195NSA3QN1NKJMN86JSN%26pf_rd_t%3D101%26pf_rd_p%3D311501601%26pf_rd_i%3D507846) which launched as an early Beta in September (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/09/25/amazon-launches-public-beta-of-drm-free-music-store/). Amazon's DRM-free store works on Macs and integrates remarkably well with iTunes.

The negotiations also serve as a push for several labels to join the DRM-free movement, since the promotion is sure to attract a large number of customers. Wal-Mart is also forcing the issue by alerting Warner Music Group and Sony BMG that they will pull all Windows Media Audio (DRM) format music from their site by January if the labels have not yet provided their music in MP3 format.

At present, the labels offering DRM-free music are fragmented across stores. EMI was first to announce the launch of DRM-free music in iTunes, while Universal is offering (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/09/universal-to-sell-music-without-copy-protection-but-not-on-itunes/) DRM free music to everyone but iTunes.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/30/pepsi-to-team-up-with-amazon-for-superbowl-mp3-giveaway/)



confucious626
Nov 30, 2007, 04:22 PM
This is going to be interesting.

Nicolasdec
Nov 30, 2007, 04:24 PM
How dose this have anything to do with macs????

lozanoj83
Nov 30, 2007, 04:25 PM
No iTunes? noooo... But it'll be interesting how it turns out in the end.

nagromme
Nov 30, 2007, 04:28 PM
1 billion DRM-free songs, iPod-ready and integrated nicely with iTunes (which Amazon's downloader is)? Sounds good to me!

MrLubeMan
Nov 30, 2007, 04:40 PM
The record Cos. wouldn't listen to their customers. Now they whine about how bad the CD business is. Give customers quality, convenience, ease of use and they will spend money.

Their business is changing and they have missed the bus. Now The market will dictate how they will have to do business. Tough crap. That is business. It is never static.
Good luck Execs. ;) :p

cal6n
Nov 30, 2007, 04:50 PM
Excellent!

Let the price wars begin...

Eduardo1971
Nov 30, 2007, 04:57 PM
I've dowloaded several albums from Amozon's site and I too, am surprized how well Amazon's service works with iTunes. They have found a convert in me.

Warbrain
Nov 30, 2007, 04:59 PM
Why is this being voted down? This is great news regardless! No DRM!

cal6n
Nov 30, 2007, 05:06 PM
Why is this being voted down? This is great news regardless! No DRM!

I smell fanbois..

In other news, it's for yanks only. :mad:

vga4life
Nov 30, 2007, 05:07 PM
Why is this being voted down?

Fanbois. You can lead 'em to good news but you can't make 'em think.

This is great news regardless! No DRM!

Yep.

timothyjay2004
Nov 30, 2007, 05:12 PM
I think it's getting voted down because everyone is getting tired of the music industry's crap. I for one am. I love iTunes. It made me go from downloading music illegally to downloading songs for 99 cents a pop. The music industry hates the fact that now CDs are not being sold as well because people only want the songs that are good, not the other filler crap often included on compact disks. Before iTunes, I looked into other digital download services, such as music match, and never found the same quality. If the record companies want to abandon iTunes, fine, I'll go back to the old way of doing things.. It's a hell of a lot cheaper for me, considering I have legally purchased 1,064 songs since iTunes 4 debuted with the store.

As far as Amazon teaming up with Pepsi, I think it is good and bad at the same time. I honestly wish that Apple would bring back the Pepsi + iTunes deal that they had in 04 and 05. I drink pepsi, and I use iTunes, so it worked out well when I was on the road to pretty much get a 2 for 1. DRM free doesn't make much of a difference to me. If I want to make iTunes music DRM free, I'll just burn and reimport.. tada DRM free. I'm also not a fan of the MP3 format. MP4 (P or A), to me at least, sounds better. It's good that free songs are being given away and DRM free, for those that it matters to. But it stinks that iTunes isn't participating in it anymore...

And that's my rant :)

pavelbure
Nov 30, 2007, 05:20 PM
How dose this have anything to do with macs????


anymore this site posts nothing but non mac news on the front page. i know it's slow this time of year, but damn, this does not even have anything to do with apple.

slffl
Nov 30, 2007, 05:29 PM
So you get to choose from a bunch of EMI songs? Sounds lame. I wonder if more record labels plan on going DRM-free before the Superbowl?

megfilmworks
Nov 30, 2007, 05:34 PM
anymore this site posts nothing but non mac news on the front page. i know it's slow this time of year, but damn, this does not even have anything to do with apple.
This is very relevant to mac users, ipod and iphone users. Non DRM was driven by Apple.

Howmanoid
Nov 30, 2007, 05:45 PM
AAPL's been there, done that. You can't just do the same promo over and over again. Get's lame real quick.

Wonder what the CEO of Universal thinks about giving away 1B songs without ever seeing a penny for them??? Makes his belly aching about iTunes revenue sharing seem a little pointless.

DeadEye686
Nov 30, 2007, 05:46 PM
So you get to choose from a bunch of EMI songs? Sounds lame. I wonder if more record labels plan on going DRM-free before the Superbowl?

Universal has been signed with Amazon MP3 from the start, as well as tons of indies. Amazon MP3 has much better coverage than iTunes Plus.

DeadEye686
Nov 30, 2007, 05:47 PM
AAPL's been there, done that. You can't just do the same promo over and over again. Get's lame real quick.

Wonder what the CEO of Universal thinks about giving away 1B songs without ever seeing a penny for them??? Makes his belly aching about iTunes revenue sharing seem a little pointless.

I assure you he's getting more than a penny for them. And yes, you can do the same promo over and over again if it successfully promotes your products why on earth wouldn't you be able to?

nostaws
Nov 30, 2007, 05:49 PM
I think this is bad news for apple (the pepsi amazon deal), but good news for consumers as a whole. This is great. I want to buy music anywhere and play it on anything (I am an ipod user). I might even buy more music.

slffl
Nov 30, 2007, 05:51 PM
Universal has been signed with Amazon MP3 from the start, as well as tons of indies. Amazon MP3 has much better coverage than iTunes Plus.

I thought Apple was advertising that iTunes had the largest selection of DRM-free music?

Apocalypse
Nov 30, 2007, 05:52 PM
I think it's getting voted down because everyone is getting tired of the music industry's crap. I for one am. I love iTunes. It made me go from downloading music illegally to downloading songs for 99 cents a pop.

I agree.. The music labels are pissed off that they lost control to Apple, but the reason it happened is that they were too dumb to create this kind of system themselves (and even if they did it would probably be overpriced and crappy anyway). Now we have Universal trying to artificially create their own system that users won't want to use (mac rumors post (http://www.macrumors.com/2007/11/27/universal-music-groups-view-of-the-digital-world/)). They'll basically continue to alienate users by pulling this kind of crap and then cracking down on illegal file sharing. They're not just shooting themselves in the foot, they're very likely killing their own future viability. Big name artists are already starting to release self-published records, and eventually music labels may become obsolete completely. The crap that they're pulling will only speed their demise.

On a slightly unrelated note, I feel the same way about NBC pulling its content from iTunes. More greedy corporate crap. What I like about Apple is that they try to provide real value to users instead of just trying to milk them as much as they can.

mandoman
Nov 30, 2007, 05:52 PM
It's getting voted down because it's pepsi instead of coke,
nothing to do with itunes vs. amazon!

Eww, Pepsi, who drinks that crap? :rolleyes:

Kidding aside, I am glad to see the push for DRM free music.
Bigger news was the tidbit about Walmart coercing
the labels to offer DRM free music.

Coca-Cola and iTunes!

edoates
Nov 30, 2007, 06:01 PM
It's getting voted down because it's pepsi instead of coke,
nothing to do with itunes vs. amazon!

Eww, Pepsi, who drinks that crap? :rolleyes:

Kidding aside, I am glad to see the push for DRM free music.
Bigger news was the tidbit about Walmart coercing
the labels to offer DRM free music.

Coca-Cola and iTunes!

I'm all in favor of DRM free music, but as an audiophile of sorts, I despise MP3 in all of its variants. MP4 (AAC) is clearly superior at any given bit rate, and at Apple iTunes DRM-free data rate (256KB), it is almost (but not quite) AIFF in quality.

Admittedly, listening to music on most cheesy earbuds does little to expose fidelity flaws, but since it appears that we are headed to a downloaded music (and video) world with CD's and even DVD discs disappearing, we should be pushing for the highest quality format we can get. And MP3 ain't it!

Eddie O

japanime
Nov 30, 2007, 06:12 PM
iTunes and Coca-Cola ran a similar campaign this past summer in Japan.

I bought 30 bottles of Coke and won a grand total of 3 iTunes download codes. :(

SciTeach
Nov 30, 2007, 06:22 PM
And that's my rant :)

Next on the soapbox....#82.....#82, your up next.;):D

GSMiller
Nov 30, 2007, 06:27 PM
I don't necessarily see this as a bad thing, I mean the songs are DRM-free. I just won't be downloading any music from Universal through the deal ;)

Cambrown99
Nov 30, 2007, 06:30 PM
I love the iTunes store, but open competition is always good thing.

timothyjay2004
Nov 30, 2007, 06:48 PM
iTunes and Coca-Cola ran a similar campaign this past summer in Japan.

I bought 30 bottles of Coke and won a grand total of 3 iTunes download codes. :(

You didn't tip the bottles and check the caps before you bought them lol. I bought 65 bottles of pepsi the last time they had the promo, 64 were winners.. the 1 was because I was in a hurry... I can't imagine how I won all of those... lol :D

mahonmeister
Nov 30, 2007, 07:22 PM
Fanbois. You can lead 'em to good news but you can't make 'em think.So true.

Anyways, 1 Billion songs!?! If the average song is between 8 and 10 megabytes, then Amazon will have to serve up 8-10 thousand terabytes of data! I wonder how many people will actually download the song they've won.

sblasl
Nov 30, 2007, 07:31 PM
What bothers me most is the power that Wal-Mart has in dictating how they want to do business. Apple always gets the flogging because of it's "closed" system and how they have too much influence over the music industry. Now here is Wal-Mart telling them how they are going to do business.

If I were the record labels I think I would be more concerned with Wal-Mart.

For established artist like the Eagles, they can just side-step the record labels and go to Wal-Mart for a distribution deal.

kangaroo
Nov 30, 2007, 07:33 PM
I'm all in favor of DRM free music, but as an audiophile of sorts, I despise MP3 in all of its variants. MP4 (AAC) is clearly superior at any given bit rate, and at Apple iTunes DRM-free data rate (256KB), it is almost (but not quite) AIFF in quality.
...
Eddie O

Aren't iTune's files DRM and 128KB?

rockosmodurnlif
Nov 30, 2007, 07:56 PM
How dose this have anything to do with macs????

It has as much to do with Macs as Universal threatening to pull their catalog from iTunes, as much to do with Macs as Steve Jobs writing an open letter advocating DRM free music, as much to do with Macs as Adobe Creative Suite pricing plans, as much to do with Macs as Al Gore winning a Nobel Prize.

I complain when I see ads disguised as articles, but at least the Macrumors guys try to cover a broad spectrum of Apple related, let me say that again, Apple related events.

I've dowloaded several albums from Amozon's site and I too, am surprized how well Amazon's service works with iTunes. They have found a convert in me.

Maybe this is lost on me but haven't you always been able to drag and drop mp3s into iTunes or does Amazon do something different?

Universal has been signed with Amazon MP3 from the start, as well as tons of indies. Amazon MP3 has much better coverage than iTunes Plus.

No. Flat wrong. I'm not even going to get into examples.

I'm all in favor of DRM free music, but as an audiophile of sorts, I despise MP3 in all of its variants. MP4 (AAC) is clearly superior at any given bit rate, and at Apple iTunes DRM-free data rate (256KB), it is almost (but not quite) AIFF in quality.

Admittedly, listening to music on most cheesy earbuds does little to expose fidelity flaws, but since it appears that we are headed to a downloaded music (and video) world with CD's and even DVD discs disappearing, we should be pushing for the highest quality format we can get. And MP3 ain't it!

Eddie O

I'm sick of this argument. Buy vinyl if you want super high audio fidelity.

What bothers me most is the power that Wal-Mart has in dictating how they want to do business. Apple always gets the flogging because of it's "closed" system and how they have too much influence over the music industry. Now here is Wal-Mart telling them how they are going to do business.

If I were the record labels I think I would be more concerned with Wal-Mart.

For established artist like the Eagles, they can just side-step the record labels and go to Wal-Mart for a distribution deal.

You would be right, if there was Wal-Tunes which only worked with the Wal-Pod.

But Wal-Mart is probably thinking wmas don't work with iPods, as far as I know, so why would anyone buy that?

And why don't these companies ever team up with Poland Spring or something so I can buy some water and get free tunes instead of blasted soda all the time.

TurboSC
Nov 30, 2007, 08:25 PM
sweet, the consumer always wins! :D

timothyjay2004
Nov 30, 2007, 08:31 PM
Aren't iTune's files DRM and 128KB?

Apple now offers some music, mostly by the EMI record label, that are now DRM free and will play on anything that can play AAC audio files (other music players, phones, etc.). Those DRM free AAC files are at 256 kbps verses the DRM protected audio files at 128 kbps. When the DRM free songs first came out, they were $1.29 a song. They are all now the 99 cents per song, the same as the DRM protected, a pretty good deal considering the quality verses MP3.

arn
Nov 30, 2007, 08:37 PM
Maybe this is lost on me but haven't you always been able to drag and drop mp3s into iTunes or does Amazon do something different?

Amazon has a download manager application that handles downloading your songs/albums that import them automatically into iTunes.

So basically, you click buy song on their site, and it shows up in iTunes after it downloads.

arn

rockthecasbah
Nov 30, 2007, 10:16 PM
Amazon is a great store, but i really only like buying albums from it. I don't know why but I just prefer the organization of the iTMS for singles... :rolleyes:

megfilmworks
Nov 30, 2007, 10:51 PM
For established artist like the Eagles, they can just side-step the record labels and go to Wal-Mart for a distribution deal.
You're right, or Apple, or Starbucks, etc.

SiliconAddict
Dec 1, 2007, 01:17 AM
I'm all for this however I LOATH MP3. Mainly because AAC IMHO sounds better and it also allows you to have the coverart contained IN the file vs. MP3 that has it as a sep file. 1 file vs. 2 files. Kinda a no brainer on which is better. Now if Amazon offered AAC as a download option.....I'd be all over that.

elgruga
Dec 1, 2007, 03:10 AM
Just to ram the point home: THIS NEWS HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH APPLE!

How the hell do you think that Apple has survived and finally cracked the mass market again?
iTunes and the iPod, of course.

If it wasn't for the brilliant iPod, you might not have a Mac at all.

The music biz is totally fragmenting and hopefully it will bring good things....

Time for Apple to start signing contracts with bands to sell their music?

surferfromuk
Dec 1, 2007, 04:16 AM
well, that's thwarted Universal's plans!! - another bloody download giant to contend with!!!

"another pesky varmit music download service that I must destroy...wwahahha why won't they listen."

It's frankly hilarious...I should expect Creepy Steve Balmer and Universal to do some shady deal and go 'Zune Exclusive'...

Meanwhile Steve Jobs is stood in Apple HQ looking at the Rev 1.0 demo for Iphone Two with a HUGE grin on his face, nodding his head thinking about all the extra iTunes downloads they will get once they launch the Iphone Application Store;

"3G, integrated GPS (with Apple 'best in class' Sat Nav package), double battery life, and best of all Gen II of the Touch OSX!!- all managed with iTunes!...oh and did I mention an e-reader package and an edge to edge 250ppi screen (home button doubled as on/off and (long hold) on the top)"

mac1civ
Dec 1, 2007, 06:44 AM
Competition is good!:o

Lone Deranger
Dec 1, 2007, 07:25 AM
Now if only Amazon made this an international market we'd really be getting somewhere. I can't stand this US-only crap. :(

I've dowloaded several albums from Amozon's site and I too, am surprized how well Amazon's service works with iTunes. They have found a convert in me.

gjwfoasfsaevg
Dec 1, 2007, 08:12 AM
I'm all for this however I LOATH MP3. Mainly because AAC IMHO sounds better

At > 200 kbps it doesn't matter if it's MP3, AAC, OGG or whatever, if it is done with a decent encoder you won't hear any difference.

and it also allows you to have the coverart contained IN the file

That works with any MP3, too.

egsaxy
Dec 1, 2007, 08:35 AM
for the entire digital music industry way to bite the hand that fed you. i pretty much want to boycott most mainstream music anyhow but this just gets under my skin. without apple napster (the old school) would still be the prevalent way of distribution of digital music. Apple should just become a label (or buy out apple corps) and be done with it. the music labels just dont get it. grr i have very little faith in corporate america right now. come to think of it, i pretty much have little faith in all of america right now. well that's cheerful thoughts on my way to work.

CommodityFetish
Dec 1, 2007, 08:48 AM
On the surface this looks good for consumers, more choice, price wars, competition, etc.

But the reason the record execs are doing it is it will help break up Apple's quasi-monopoly on digital distribution, and that monopoly is what's been thwarting the content owner's monopoly-control over prices (charging more for new releases, etc). Once there are multiple competing channels for content distribution, won't we just get the record industry monopoly (who own big % of the product) dictating prices again, as was the case with CDs?

The consumers (and artists?) won't really win until you de-centralize marketshare of the distributors, AND ownership of the music to be sold. ie: when artists are selling direct to consumers, as is starting to happen (see Radiohead). Then you have real "price wars" and fewer middlemen to take a cut from artists.

;)

CommodityFetish
Dec 1, 2007, 08:56 AM
On the file format issue. I'm all for AAC. The trouble is that most cell phones, music players, besides the ipod do not support it - from what I've seen. So Amazon is not motivated to carry it if MP3 remains the 'universally playable' standard.

If Apple had licensed Fairplay (DRM'd AAC) to other sellers, then device makers would have had much more motivation to support AAC, and it might be the universal standard today. Instead Apple opted to keep their ipod-itunes lock-in, rather than promote AAC as a format.

I'm not saying this was bad or wrong, but it was a choice. Granted that device makers could have still supported AAC as an open format that's superior to MP3, but without any real financial reason to, and since Apple was not playing fair ;) they didn't...

Lets just hope Amazon is successful enough to begin to offer different file formats, but I wouldn't hold my breath. :confused:

iAlan
Dec 1, 2007, 09:08 AM
iTunes and Coca-Cola ran a similar campaign this past summer in Japan.

I bought 30 bottles of Coke and won a grand total of 3 iTunes download codes. :(

I got quite a few songs as luck would have it - including 3 lots of the 5 guaranteed songs per email address (a grand total of 15 songs) that was offered with the specially marked 500 ml bottles - 2 marked bottles were needed for each of the songs, so that was 30 bottles - most donated by co-workers who thankfully drank the Coke and just gave me the bottles! Anyway with an iTunes song priced at either 150 or 200 yen and a 500ml bottle of Coke at 150 yen I guess it wasn't all that bad a deal. Plus I won an additional 6 tracks from these 30 bottles from the standard stickers that were on them. A total of 21 songs from these 30 bottles and 7 more from about 20 other bottles - which I drank unfortunately - but all were diet!

You didn't tip the bottles and check the caps before you bought them lol. I bought 65 bottles of pepsi the last time they had the promo, 64 were winners.. the 1 was because I was in a hurry... I can't imagine how I won all of those... lol :D

Actually, the codes were inside little stickers on the sides of the bottles and you had to enter the codes into a special Coke home page and it would then tell you if the number was a winner - and you would then receive an email with a verification code you entered into iTunes to add a song credit to your account. A pain in the part of the body you sit on because the code was 9 digits long. You could copy and past the verification code though. Anyway, no way of knowing if hte number was a winner simply by inspecting the bottle.

CommodityFetish
Dec 1, 2007, 09:33 AM
On the other hand... If Apple, Amazon, Best-Buy, and Wal-mart control 90% of the distribution market (if they don't already...), they could ban together the way the record execs have done in the past, and retain their quasi-monopoly power on distribution and dictate their prices and terms.

In a sense we see Wal-mart doing this to get DRM-free from the labels.

Although, the labels can always set up their own store like lulu.com, and bypass these distributors...

As always, interesting to watch it play out... :D

twoodcc
Dec 1, 2007, 10:28 AM
well i wish it was apple instead of amazon

Doctor Q
Dec 1, 2007, 11:34 AM
well i wish it was apple instead of amazonI miss the iTunes-Pepsi promotions. I went nuts collecting music from everyone I knew who drank Pepsi those two years. I got 153 songs from those promos.

Pepsi doesn't care about that annual tradition, of course. They are looking for good ways to sell fizzy stuff in plastic bottles, so any dance partner will do. Teaming with Amazon, if it occurs, will be something new, and that phrase helps with publicity.

MrKahuna
Dec 1, 2007, 12:13 PM
Next on the soapbox....#82.....#82, your up next.;):D

#82 here. My soapbox topic for today is all the people who don't know the difference between your and you're (and sometimes yore I suppose.)

Rant over. #83, you're up. :D ;)

bigandy
Dec 1, 2007, 12:25 PM
a billion songs does seem a little unlikely :rolleyes:

Jetson
Dec 1, 2007, 12:57 PM
At > 200 kbps it doesn't matter if it's MP3, AAC, OGG or whatever, if it is done with a decent encoder you won't hear any difference.
This may be true for those who have destroyed their hearing, but not for people with normal or superior hearing.

I'm talking about people who go to clubs blasting music around 130 decibels. Or people who sit next to you on the bus or train with earbuds on, music blasting into their brains so loud that the entire bus can hear their lousy music.

Yes to these people AAC is just like MP3! :D

edoates
Dec 1, 2007, 01:11 PM
Aren't iTune's files DRM and 128KB?
Their DRM protected files are at 128KB (too low a rate in my opinion); the iTunes Plus (DRM-free) files are at 256KB.

Eddie O

edoates
Dec 1, 2007, 01:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by edoates
I'm all in favor of DRM free music, but as an audiophile of sorts, I despise MP3 in all of its variants. MP4 (AAC) is clearly superior at any given bit rate, and at Apple iTunes DRM-free data rate (256KB), it is almost (but not quite) AIFF in quality.

Admittedly, listening to music on most cheesy earbuds does little to expose fidelity flaws, but since it appears that we are headed to a downloaded music (and video) world with CD's and even DVD discs disappearing, we should be pushing for the highest quality format we can get. And MP3 ain't it!

Eddie O
I'm sick of this argument. Buy vinyl if you want super high audio fidelity.


You may be sick of it, but it is true. A well produced CD (or even better, DVD-Audio or SACD) is about equal to good vinyl (go ahead, flame me). My point is that with physical media slowly disappearing, low quality (about cassette tape or FM radio fidelity) may be the only way to get some music. Anyone with ears and a decent pair of speakes or good headphones can easily hear the difference between 128KB mp3 / mp4 audio and CD: listen for the phasing on cymbal rings, stereo bass, that annoying "lisp" on human voices, especially female, and width and depth of the stereo image. It has to do with frequency response and accurate phase of audio wave forms. MP3 and low bit rates in general squash those things.

Music producers, even of negligible music, use very high quality systems to record and master: things like 192kHz 24 bit sampling ProTools HD systems. Some of us have actual high fidelity systems (Denon CD player, Meridian 861 preamp, Brian Elliot custom transducer systems), and these high end system dramatically expose flaws in the recording, media, and playback chain.

So if companies want to distribute MP3's, at least make them high bit rate copies, as Apple dies with iTunes Plus.

Eddie O

The Monkey
Dec 1, 2007, 01:38 PM
This, of course, is good news for the consumer and highly relevant to Apple.

Brianstorm91
Dec 1, 2007, 01:46 PM
Rant over. #83, you're up. :D ;)

#83, American Football.
Rugby for men in tght trousers and padding, where they throw the rugby ball the wrong way and are stood stationary for far too long.
Oh and they ruined the pitch at Wembley, too.

Roll on up, #84!

minik
Dec 1, 2007, 02:24 PM
Not a Pepsi soda pop drinker, but I like the Amazon MP3 Downloads.

phytonix
Dec 1, 2007, 02:30 PM
Say no to Soda.

RichardI
Dec 1, 2007, 04:52 PM
Sorry, but with what passes for "songs" these days, they'd have to pay me to download their drivel. Free just doesn't get it.

bankshot
Dec 1, 2007, 06:16 PM
Hopefully they do the 7-Eleven (http://www.7-eleven.com/) cups as well, like the iTunes promotions did. The 20-oz bottles of Pepsi are a ripoff as it is, and especially not worth buying extra for a chance at a few "free" songs. The fountain drinks are much more reasonably priced, and you get more choice. Might actually be a good deal for anyone who regularly drinks <insert soda sold at the 7-Eleven fountain>.

rockosmodurnlif
Dec 1, 2007, 08:16 PM
You may be sick of it, but it is true. A well produced CD (or even better, DVD-Audio or SACD) is about equal to good vinyl (go ahead, flame me). My point is that with physical media slowly disappearing, low quality (about cassette tape or FM radio fidelity) may be the only way to get some music. Anyone with ears and a decent pair of speakes or good headphones can easily hear the difference between 128KB mp3 / mp4 audio and CD: listen for the phasing on cymbal rings, stereo bass, that annoying "lisp" on human voices, especially female, and width and depth of the stereo image. It has to do with frequency response and accurate phase of audio wave forms. MP3 and low bit rates in general squash those things.

Music producers, even of negligible music, use very high quality systems to record and master: things like 192kHz 24 bit sampling ProTools HD systems. Some of us have actual high fidelity systems (Denon CD player, Meridian 861 preamp, Brian Elliot custom transducer systems), and these high end system dramatically expose flaws in the recording, media, and playback chain.

So if companies want to distribute MP3's, at least make them high bit rate copies, as Apple dies with iTunes Plus.

Eddie O

I've been there, done that. I spend my money on music not audio systems and when I play my 128 kbps mp3 or CD through my speakers or headphones, or car speakers, they all sound the same so I don't hear what you're talking about.

But maybe I've destroyed my hearing which would just be another reason I don't care. I'm sorry, I don't mean to be rude but audiophiles just rub me the completely wrong way. It's always the words audiophiles always use

Anyone with ears and a decent pair of speakes or good headphones can easily hear the difference between 128KB mp3 / mp4 audio and CD

I've got news for you. I'm anyone and I can't easily hear the difference. And I'm not the only one. Or maybe I am. Either way it's not going to keep me from enjoying my music. I've done blind hearing tests on myself encoded from 96 to 320 kbps mp3 / aac and flac, speakers and headphones, classical, jazz and metal, all dropped one genre at a time into a playlist, hit the shuffle button and then play because maybe I wanted to see for myself. The only one I could tell the difference between is the 96 and 112 kbps. Above that its all the same.

Anyway I'll take #84. Let #85 have at it.

Stig McNasty
Dec 2, 2007, 05:18 AM
Anything which helps Apple maintain it's business model is good for me as it means more money in the R&D pot, which means = cool Macs, iPhones, iPods = a happy me.
To be honest I'm not too fussed about the practicalities if it's US only!

gjwfoasfsaevg
Dec 2, 2007, 07:31 AM
This may be true for those who have destroyed their hearing, but not for people with normal or superior hearing.

I'm talking about people who go to clubs blasting music around 130 decibels. Or people who sit next to you on the bus or train with earbuds on, music blasting into their brains so loud that the entire bus can hear their lousy music.

Yes to these people AAC is just like MP3! :D

OK, so you made a blind test with MP3 vs. AAC at > 200 kpbs and were able to tell them apart? Not? Thought so. "I have AACs and MP3s and I think AACs sound better" doesn't work.

And contrary to what you think, people with damaged hearing are in general *more* likely to notice compression artifacts, because the compression is optimized for people with perfectly normal hearing. At > 200 kbps though it won't matter.

Thomas2006
Dec 2, 2007, 07:36 AM
With non-DRMed MP3 and AAC files taking off, where does WMA and "Plays for sure" stand? I assume Zune will always play WMA, but are "Plays for sure" stores and devices still around?

puuukeey
Dec 2, 2007, 08:58 AM
its almost as if apple attempted to strong arm an entire industry into using their product exclusively.

what did they expect?

theBB
Dec 2, 2007, 11:17 AM
If Apple had licensed Fairplay (DRM'd AAC) to other sellers, then device makers would have had much more motivation to support AAC, and it might be the universal standard today. Instead Apple opted to keep their ipod-itunes lock-in, rather than promote AAC as a format.

If Apple licensed Fairplay, we would not have much if any songs without encryption. Right now, music industry is desperate to create viable competitors to iTunes, as nobody wants to be stuck with one distributor. As iPod marketshare is really big, they have to sell songs in an iPod compatible format, so they are forced to give up encryption.

benpatient
Dec 2, 2007, 12:13 PM
As a person with 6,000 dollars of audio equipment sitting around in my house because lesser things don't sound "good enough," I feel pretty well qualified to say that I can hear a difference between various things.

That said, I can't tell a difference between the 256 mp3s offered on Amazon and my CDs of the same albums. I could always tell at 128 kbps, whether it was an mp3 or an AAC file didn't matter. At 128 you can tell. Maybe the AAC was slightly less raspy and distorted on the high end. But AAC does funny things to the mid-range when you compress down to 128.

I've seen blind A/B testing between CD and 256 MP3 and FLAC, and some pretty "snotty" audiophile types have shown that despite their personal beliefs to the contrary, you can't tell a difference.

A 128kbps mp3, though, can sound terrible. A 128kbps AAC file can sound what I would call "mediocre."

I only buy lossless audio files (except for the above mentioned Amazon experiment) as a personal preference, but it isn't because I can honestly say that I can hear a difference. It's because I'm a purist and it irks me to buy something that's less than a CD, even if the differences are only academic.

Now SACD and DVD-Audio, those I can get behind. CDs are like a good Xerox copy of an oil painting compared to a really great DSD SACD surround transfer mastered straight from multi. That is bliss.

You all might be surprised to know that Apple was offered first dibs on this promo. Their conditions were too limiting.

monopolies are bad. even when you like the monopoly.

edoates
Dec 2, 2007, 12:43 PM
I've been there, done that. I spend my money on music not audio systems and when I play my 128 kbps mp3 or CD through my speakers or headphones, or car speakers, they all sound the same so I don't hear what you're talking about.

...

I've got news for you. I'm anyone and I can't easily hear the difference. And I'm not the only one. Or maybe I am. Either way it's not going to keep me from enjoying my music. I've done blind hearing tests on myself encoded from 96 to 320 kbps mp3 / aac and flac, speakers and headphones, classical, jazz and metal, all dropped one genre at a time into a playlist, hit the shuffle button and then play because maybe I wanted to see for myself. The only one I could tell the difference between is the 96 and 112 kbps. Above that its all the same.

Anyway I'll take #84. Let #85 have at it.

Funk #85: I guess those were "deaf" tests...Yes, I am an audiophile, but not (I hope) a winky one. I don't use subjective words and am a believer in blind testing and measurements. There are clear measurement differences among the various compression methods; some would be clearly audible to those with "normal" hearing when auditioned via full range speaker systems with adequate power reserves (doubling the power only give a 3dB rise in output!).

All that said, if YOU can't hear the difference between 128KB MP3 and AIFF, then be my guest and buy stuff in that format. Or maybe, get thee to a GOOD audio emporium (Best Buy and the Good Guys do NOT sell any audiophile equipment last time I looked; for mass market stores, see Magnolia Hi Fi) and listen to what's possible, maybe Levinson or Krell preamp/amplificaition through Wilson speakers (Grand Slams would be revealing), or a full on all digital Meridian system: 800 CD player, 861 preamp, and 8000 series speakers. Yeah, that stuff costs more than a couple of cars, but it does show what is possible to achieve. You don't need to go "all the way" to obtain audibly different results than you likely have with your current headphones and speakers.

And if you can't hear the difference between the various format with those systems, then, well, I guess for you, there is not difference and you should get whatever is less expensive. That is not a perforative statement.

If you spend you time listening to Green Day or some such (and I like that stuff, too), truly high end systems probably don't matter much; if you listen to a large variety of music: rock, metal, classical, jazz, opera, etc., then some of those imperceptible difference become glaringly obvious.

Eddie O

andy721
Dec 2, 2007, 02:22 PM
How bout this **** pepsi & amazon an just get free music from Acquisition.
yet pepsi is a bad product same with any other soda products, high sugar an causes cancer. I don't know why they haven't changed their ingredients its killing us slowly but incogned-o :D
govt has to do with population control. Same with fast food. They all need to change their ingredients. process meat also. US gone to *****!

kingtj
Dec 2, 2007, 06:21 PM
You really don't have to wonder.... Just check out the interview with him Wired Magazine just published. (You can find it on www.wired.com.)

It's pretty obvious the guy has no real "long term vision" for much of anything the company does. He's much more of the mindset that they need to react swiftly and defensively to anything that comes along, attacking their traditional business model. Right now, he views iTunes as the enemy that needs to be destroyed - simply because back when they first partnered with Universal, they became a "gatekeeper", collecting a lot of revenue off of all of Universal's material. (In his view, ANY revenue made off Universal's artists that doesn't go back into Universal's pockets is a problem they need to fix as quickly as possible - because it means they're being "cheated out of some money".)

He's willing to take whatever losses are necessary to force iTunes out of the game. It's a cost of "war", as far as he's concerned.

Of course, this is a ridiculously poor long-term business strategy - and I think most of us can see that a mile away. But the music industry is run by people who simply don't "do technology". All of this stuff intimidates them, really. They see the whole digital music revolution as a "bad thing", because it forces them to learn new things and takes away from what they feel is the "core" of their business; listening to new artists and picking out talent people will be willing to pay money to listen to.


AAPL's been there, done that. You can't just do the same promo over and over again. Get's lame real quick.

Wonder what the CEO of Universal thinks about giving away 1B songs without ever seeing a penny for them??? Makes his belly aching about iTunes revenue sharing seem a little pointless.

mdriftmeyer
Dec 2, 2007, 07:11 PM
its almost as if apple attempted to strong arm an entire industry into using their product exclusively.

what did they expect?

That's hilarious. The Media Industry strong-arms their artists and consumer options.

Apple has forced them to try other bait n' switches.

Eventually, when Artists can decide who to distribute their songs through it will then be up to the Artist to manage their choices and accept whether or not they make it big or bust because they couldn't manage their options.

Consumers win on choice, not quality.

Piss poor music no matter who distributes and controls it is what has killed the Music Industry and drove away leagues of talented artists who never compromised on their style.

Most musicians realize they aren't going to live a life of luxury.

Music is a background to sell bling bling, sex and more bling bling.

The music still thrives in the underground scene where various genres were never "pop" music.

Those artists never expected to be rich. Traveling the globe, partying and having groupies were pretty much the spoils of the trade.

The former great musicians who are growing long in years either do a variety show in Vegas or try for that one final "Reunion Tour."

It's life. You accept the machine and it's many consumptions or you don't get in the game.

rockosmodurnlif
Dec 2, 2007, 07:17 PM
How bout this **** pepsi & amazon an just get free music from Acquisition.
yet pepsi is a bad product same with any other soda products, high sugar an causes cancer. I don't know why they haven't changed their ingredients its killing us slowly but incogned-o :D
govt has to do with population control. Same with fast food. They all need to change their ingredients. process meat also. US gone to *****!

Wow. You're kookier than the audiophile guy. I didn't understand a lot of what he was saying but I'd prefer that to craziness coming out of your mouth.

Isn't Acquisition shareware? How much sense does that make? Let me pay them so I can illegally download other people's intellectual property when there are any number of other methods to do it legally or for free.

The Monkey
Dec 2, 2007, 07:23 PM
As a person with 6,000 dollars of audio equipment sitting around in my house because lesser things don't sound "good enough," I feel pretty well qualified to say that I can hear a difference between various things.


In other words, you have a mid-fi setup.

deathshrub
Dec 2, 2007, 08:13 PM
If I want to make iTunes music DRM free, I'll just burn and reimport.. tada DRM free.

Wow. Transcoding a 128 kbps song. Really smart.

Snowy_River
Dec 2, 2007, 08:54 PM
On the other hand... If Apple, Amazon, Best-Buy, and Wal-mart control 90% of the distribution market (if they don't already...), they could ban together the way the record execs have done in the past, and retain their quasi-monopoly power on distribution and dictate their prices and terms...

Except for the fact that this would be an anti-trust violation, and therefore illegal...


On the file format issue. I'm all for AAC. The trouble is that most cell phones, music players, besides the ipod do not support it - from what I've seen. So Amazon is not motivated to carry it if MP3 remains the 'universally playable' standard.

If Apple had licensed Fairplay (DRM'd AAC) to other sellers, then device makers would have had much more motivation to support AAC, and it might be the universal standard today. Instead Apple opted to keep their ipod-itunes lock-in, rather than promote AAC as a format.

I'm not saying this was bad or wrong, but it was a choice. Granted that device makers could have still supported AAC as an open format that's superior to MP3, but without any real financial reason to, and since Apple was not playing fair ;) they didn't...

Lets just hope Amazon is successful enough to begin to offer different file formats, but I wouldn't hold my breath. :confused:

This is not true, in my experience. My phone, my wife's phone, my parents phones, my in-laws' phones, they all can play AAC. More media players than not, in my experience, these days support AAC. It's only smart for them to do so.

Now, it's true that the protected AAC format that Apple uses is only supported by iPods (and the iPhone), but that's only natural. And, as far as you "not saying this was bad or wrong", it really seems that you're talking out of both sides of you mouth, as you accuse Apple of "not playing fair". Yes, I get the joke, but it's clearly an indication that you think that their choice to keep the Fair Play DRM proprietary was a bad and wrong choice.

If you ask me, it wasn't. Apple made a business decision to keep the format close to the vest, so to speak. The reasons are pretty clear. If they licensed it to other online stores, then it could have entered the wild pretty quickly and other device manufacturers would reverse engineer it and come up with iPod competitors that would play Fair Play DRMed songs. Whether or not this would have happened, it was a business decision to attempt to block this for the good of the iPod. And the iPod is generally recognized as the reason that Apple is doing as well as it is at this point. So, to argue against their decision is tantamount to arguing for a poorer, weaker Apple that isn't such an industry leader. This may be a little bit of an exaggeration, but I think that there is some truth to it, and it's not a simple issue, no matter how you try to cut it.

andy721
Dec 3, 2007, 12:37 AM
Wow. You're kookier than the audiophile guy. I didn't understand a lot of what he was saying but I'd prefer that to craziness coming out of your mouth.

Isn't Acquisition shareware? How much sense does that make? Let me pay them so I can illegally download other people's intellectual property when there are any number of other methods to do it legally or for free.

Sorry I had a bad day thats all.:)

rockosmodurnlif
Dec 3, 2007, 07:22 AM
Sorry I had a bad day thats all.:)

S'cool. Happens to all of us sometime.

morespce54
Dec 3, 2007, 01:02 PM
This is very relevant to mac users, ipod and iphone users. Non DRM was driven by Apple.

Indeed. Specially since Apple started the iTunes(music)-Pepsi Giveaway...
Now it will be interesting to see how this is gonna play out. If they don't get the expected results, Amazon and Pepsi will have to admit that the whole iTunes/iPod set-up is *really* good! ;)