Google Music and Apple iTunes

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

CNet reports (http://news.com.com/Google+whistles+a+new+tune/2100-1024_3-5995864.html?tag=nefd.top) that Google has launched a new Google Music search service which allows users to type in band names, albums and songs into Google which will bring relevant results along with links to merchants for online ordering or downloading.

Apple's iTunes is amongst the initial merchant partners along with RealNetworks, eMusic and Amazon.com

This confirms a Google and Apple rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/08/20050815090608.shtml) from August 2005 that claimed that "Google is going to offer iTunes somehow on their platform".

The new system appears to be in place (samples: Tanya Donelly (http://www.google.com/musicsearch?q=tanya+donelly), Crash Test Dummies (http://www.google.com/musicsearch?q=crash+test+dummies))

[AoWolf]

Google could be a powerful ally. I don't however think they be a threat or even a big splash on web-music in the long run.

[Sunrunner]

Google could be a powerful ally.


Very true. In fact, a Google/Apple alliance would likely have the strength to outdo the MS empire... though the dark side is strong with its leader...

[jdechko]

Looks pretty good. I like that they've done it like the other specialized services. Have a link to the special search at the top, but list the web search below.

[Lacero]

This confirms a Google and Apple rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2005/08/20050815090608.shtml) from August 2005 that claimed that "Google is going to offer iTunes somehow on their platform".
Can't go wrong partnering with Apple. Google will benefit greatly from this partnership. :p

But could it backfire for iTMS?


Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

[Doctor Q]

Cross reference to MacBytes story: Google whistles a new tune.

Sample Google screenshot:

[Rantipole]

Finally Apple has teamed up with someone else, and gotten off their high-horse.

License Fairplay, Apple!!! :rolleyes:

[Sunrunner]

Can't go wrong partnering with Apple. Google will benefit greatly from this partnership. :p

But could it backfire for iTMS?


Here's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)


The method of showing relative album cost may push more users to cheaper (albiet crappier) download sources such as walmart.com

[Chaszmyr]

Finally Apple has teamed up with someone else, and gotten off their high-horse.

License Fairplay, Apple!!! :rolleyes:

It's really in the best interest of Apple's consumers for Fairplay to remain in Apple's hands. Letting iPod users use software other than iTunes will only make their life more difficult. For the record, I think people who have iPods and don't use iTunes (of whom I know a couple) are either ignorant or crazy.

[corywoolf]

There's a lot more stores then those that can be listed. I got CDuniverse.com and artistdirect.com along with iTMS, Real and MSN Music.

[Sunrunner]

It's really in the best interest of Apple's consumers for Fairplay to remain in Apple's hands. Letting iPod users use software other than iTunes will only make their life more difficult. For the record, I think people who have iPods and don't use iTunes (of whom I know a couple) are either ignorant or crazy.

Exactly. The closed system is a benifit, as it ensures perfect interoperability. I can only imagine the havoc crappy third-party Fairplay implementations could cause....

[Seasought]

I'll be curious to see if Pandora ends up jumping in with this.

[Kelmon]

It's really in the best interest of Apple's consumers for Fairplay to remain in Apple's hands. Letting iPod users use software other than iTunes will only make their life more difficult. For the record, I think people who have iPods and don't use iTunes (of whom I know a couple) are either ignorant or crazy.

I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I love iTunes but I don't always have access to iTunes and I don't want Apple to effectively dictate HOW I can listen to the music that I have bought. To give one particular example, the Roku SoundBridge can't play music purchased from the iTunes Music Store so the only way that I can stream music to my hifi is to buy an AirPort Express, even if I am using iTunes as the media player anyway.

Basically, it's my music and I want to decide how I listen to it, not have to buy an Apple product or (worse) wait for them to get around to releasing something.

[SiliconAddict]

It's really in the best interest of Apple's consumers for Fairplay to remain in Apple's hands. Letting iPod users use software other than iTunes will only make their life more difficult. For the record, I think people who have iPods and don't use iTunes (of whom I know a couple) are either ignorant or crazy.

Thank you for treating the consumer as a 5 year old child. Can you get any more arrogant? I use iTunes but I've dabbled in other media players and I fully understand why other do not want to use iTunes. Its a choice you should at the minimum respect.

[powermac]

The new system appears to be in place (samples: Tanya Donelly (http://www.google.com/musicsearch?q=tanya+donelly))

Someone has excellent taste in music.

[Doozy]

This is very cool. There are many times I have just wanted to search for music without opening itunes.

I wonder if we will be able to search for directors or actors to find videos. That would be very cool.

I haven't noticed any adwords ads on any of the artist I went searching for. Might be time to start looking into artist keywords. ie: search for Bob Marley and you get an ad for rolling paper, search for Courtney Love and get detox ads.

[balamw]

I wish Apple and Amazon would team up in a similar fashion... Buy this album from Amazon on CD for $14.99 or download it now from iTMS for $9.99. Nah, I guess that's never work...;)

For me, iTunes is what sold me the iPod, and my iBook and some purchases on iTMS. I had tried other media library apps and found them to do many counter-intuitive things. Of course, what I find intuitive and others do may be different. Third parties have already found ways to get their DRMed content on to the iPod by mimicking FairPlay, such as Real's Rhapsody, but if I can't manage it with iTunes it becomes of little use to me.

Basically, it's my music and I want to decide how I listen to it, not have to buy an Apple product or (worse) wait for them to get around to releasing something.
So make use of the rights you have under FairPlay, and burn those tracks to CD-R and re-rip them using the codec and bitrate of your choice for the Soundbridge. If the transcoding loss bothers you, don't buy from iTMS, but it is actually very fair DRM.

[philoye]

I wonder why no price for iTunes results?

[Stella]

It's really in the best interest of Apple's consumers for Fairplay to remain in Apple's hands. Letting iPod users use software other than iTunes will only make their life more difficult. For the record, I think people who have iPods and don't use iTunes (of whom I know a couple) are either ignorant or crazy.

Some people like choice... its not black and white and wrong just to say 'ignorant or crazy'.

All people are not the same - some like iTunes, some do not like iTunes - being crazy or otherwise has nothing to do with it.

As for the ease of anything else other than iTunes depends how the software is implemented. Other companies could certainly come up with something better than iTunes. Apple is NOT the final word.

As for google - i hope apple integrate this search into iTunes so to automatically copy the lyrics back to the song.

[aegisdesign]

Can you imagine the affiliate scheme earnings Google could rack up with people buying songs from clickthrus in their search? Add on AdSense and they've got huge earnings potential.

This has to be a massive money earner for Google. Did they partner with Apple or just do it anyway? Is there an announcement?

Note: So far this is only Google.com. Google.co.uk isn't showing music search yet.

[jerrybrace]

It was great to see Crash Test Dummies as a sample.

Jerry
http://www.crashtestdummies.net

[vniow]

So when can we expect the MPA (or whatever they're called) to sue Google since they provide a search for lyrics if you click on a track name?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Tanya+Donelly+Life+Is+But+a+Dream+lyrics&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

[Malfoy]

Exactly. The closed system is a benifit, as it ensures perfect interoperability. I can only imagine the havoc crappy third-party Fairplay implementations could cause....


Current State of iPod:
iTunes music works
No one elses does
=perfect interoperability

Possible future of iPod
itunes music works
Others work
= not perfect interoperability?!

Is this based on monopolies are cool as long as its Apple? I mean really how can you assume others having access to sell music is going to hurt interoperability? It's not like other people are going to be rewriting the bios with every song dl.

[Peace]

This is no "partnership" between Google and Apple.It's merely Apple and other online music services paying Google for top tiered linking.The same thing a lot of companies do..

[dernhelm]

This is no "partnership" between Google and Apple.It's merely Apple and other online music services paying Google for top tiered linking.The same thing a lot of companies do..

Exactly. This is the first post that I've seen that actually seems to understand the situation. Apple wants to make sure that when someone does a music search on Google, that they appear as a convenient link in order to buy said music. End of story.

[ASP272]

Smart move on Apple's part to make this happen. #1 Search engine linking to the #1 music store keeps #1 music store on top, even with the competitors link right next to it. We are in the era of "When Google ruled the world", so Apple should use Google to it's fullest potential. :)

[dernhelm]

It was great to see Crash Test Dummies as a sample.

Jerry
http://www.crashtestdummies.net

I agree. Made me smile too!

[Porchland]

I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I love iTunes but I don't always have access to iTunes and I don't want Apple to effectively dictate HOW I can listen to the music that I have bought. To give one particular example, the Roku SoundBridge can't play music purchased from the iTunes Music Store so the only way that I can stream music to my hifi is to buy an AirPort Express, even if I am using iTunes as the media player anyway.

Basically, it's my music and I want to decide how I listen to it, not have to buy an Apple product or (worse) wait for them to get around to releasing something.

Then buy your music somewhere else. It's that easy.

Apple built a closed system that works extraordinarily well. But it's closed, and, as long as they're not breaking antitrust laws, it's Apple's prerogitave to keep it that way.

The anti-DRM rants are hollow for this same exact reason.

[mkrishnan]

So when can we expect the MPA (or whatever they're called) to sue Google since they provide a search for lyrics if you click on a track name?

Heh...I was wondering the same thing. :(

[nagromme]

I like choice, but I also think Apple is within their rights to compete against the Microsoft monopoly by creating iTunes and iPod as a system together (which is not entirely closed). iPod sales help Mac sales, and I think Apple is within their rights to CHOOSE when and how (and for what fees) to let other companies make money off their success. Apple clearly doesn't think that time is now.

Remember, MS has an OS and office-suite monopoly and have leveraged that to force their way into other areas, like browsers and instant messaging. Apple gained their music success by no such leverage: they did it by offering a quality product. Several, in fact, integrated--but each usable WITHOUT the others too. I used iTMS without an iPod. And you can use an iPod without the Music Store.

I want companies to compete against Apple and force Apple to improve, but I respect that Apple is not obligated to help out competitors just because I'd like it. So these companies must--and DO--have their own systems of player AND store. If Apple gives Fairplay to player makers, that hurts iPod sales. If Apple gives Fairplay to other stores, that hurts iTMS. (It might give a very tiny boost to iPod sales, but it would also leave iPod owners blaming Apple for frustrations with non-Apple stores. Apple WOULD catch flak for the non-integrated system.)

Plus, every time Apple had to update their DRM details (for technological reasons, or to support new features like video, or due to agreements with record labels, or to fix bugs, or to respond to pirates), Apple would likely have to coordinate with all the OTHER users of Fairplay. Either that, or just tell companies: "You can pay us to use Fairplay, but we may update our own store and iPods in ways that break your store--or player--at any time. We can't be bothered to spend time supporting you. When a change happens, it's your problem to play catch-up." I don't see "license Fairplay" in the simple way that some do. (And would those other stores support Mac? So far, no.)

I DO see opening up Fairplay as a more likely move than supporting WMA. THAT would be directly helping Microsoft in the long run. Opening Fairplay would "only" hurt Apple sales, in exchange for some kind of fees.

But the time may be right one day for all of the above. The day may even come when Apple has a true monopoly, abuses it like Microsoft did, and is forced (unlike Microsoft's slap on the wrist by the Bush administration) to change its ways. But we're not there yet.

And to answer a question asked above: antritrust laws should be followed and enforced for all companies, but it DOES "bother me" less when Apple does something that Microsoft. Of course it does: Apple's success is based on quality products, while Microsoft's is based on being first (to buy and re-sell MS-DOS) and biggest (by being first)--despite a lot of mediocrity. And Apple is the underdog while MS is the company that kills off good competing products all the time. And I USE Apple products, not Microsoft products. So yes, even though Apple does a few awful things (iTunes not being one of them :) ), like most big companies... I am "bothered" less by Apple's success and closed stance with iPod than I am by Microsoft's success and closed stance with Windows. Even if anyone suggests the two situations are comparable (which they aren't truly).

Now if Apple used their iPod success, say, to start calculatedly killing off mobile phone makers in order to sell a mediocre Apple phone line that couldn't compete on its own merits, THAT would be monopoly abuse MS-style, and I would NOT be OK with that.

In other news, Google informs me that Dead Can Dance have re-formed and been touring :)

[Sunrunner]

Current State of iPod:
iTunes music works
No one elses does
=perfect interoperability

Possible future of iPod
itunes music works
Others work
= not perfect interoperability?!

Is this based on monopolies are cool as long as its Apple? I mean really how can you assume others having access to sell music is going to hurt interoperability? It's not like other people are going to be rewriting the bios with every song dl.


Its not a monopoly. It could only be a monopoly if the iPod were the only MP3 player. If you dont want to use an iPod simply buy something else. Thats like saying .mac is a monopoly because you need a Mac for it.

[Sunrunner]

I disagree. Don't get me wrong, I love iTunes but I don't always have access to iTunes and I don't want Apple to effectively dictate HOW I can listen to the music that I have bought. To give one particular example, the Roku SoundBridge can't play music purchased from the iTunes Music Store so the only way that I can stream music to my hifi is to buy an AirPort Express, even if I am using iTunes as the media player anyway.

Basically, it's my music and I want to decide how I listen to it, not have to buy an Apple product or (worse) wait for them to get around to releasing something.

If you dont want to use a Roku, then simply burn your purchased music to a CD and then import it back into the library.

[Randall]

If you dont want to use a Roku, then simply burn your purchased music to a CD and then import it back into the library.Does nobody understand that you lose quality this way? :rolleyes:

[Sunrunner]

Thank you for treating the consumer as a 5 year old child. Can you get any more arrogant? I use iTunes but I've dabbled in other media players and I fully understand why other do not want to use iTunes. Its a choice you should at the minimum respect.


It is just that, a choice. Use the iTMS/iPod package, or use something else. Choose. Dont complain though if Apple chooses to make it a closed loop, because you have a choice. Its their system and thusly their choice.

[Sunrunner]

Does nobody understand that you lose quality this way? :rolleyes:


Of course, but your the one who bought the Rokr without fully analyzing the implications. If the purchased music was such an issue for you, you should have gone with another audio streaming solution such as the airport express.

[SilvorX]

Someone has excellent taste in music.
someone does!!!!!!!

It was great to see Crash Test Dummies as a sample.

Jerry
http://www.crashtestdummies.net
one of my fave bands of all time, I had an acquaintance who had guitar lessons from one of the CTD guitarists back in the day..

who put the dog in the dog house?

[Stella]

It is just that, a choice. Use the iTMS/iPod package, or use something else. Choose. Dont complain though if Apple chooses to make it a closed loop, because you have a choice. Its their system and thusly their choice.

by your reasoning, microsoft can do what the hell they like, because its their system ( and abuse it how they like ).

Oh, but closed minded apple users on this site believe: no other company is allowed to control their products and how they are used, and access, EXCEPT Apple. If this Apple, all is good, any other company, and its a big no no.

[freeny]

So when can we expect the MPA (or whatever they're called) to sue Google since they provide a search for lyrics if you click on a track name?

http://www.google.com/search?q=Tanya+Donelly+Life+Is+But+a+Dream+lyrics&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
Nice point! I give it 30 days or less.

[Sunrunner]

by your reasoning, microsoft can do what the hell they like, because its their system ( and abuse it how they like ).

Oh, but closed minded apple users on this site believe: no other company is allowed to control their products and how they are used, and access, EXCEPT Apple. If this Apple, all is good, any other company, and its a big no no.

Your right, Microsoft can do whatever the heck they want with their system and I dont give a rats a$$. If you dont like it, buy a Mac.

[Randall]

Your right, Microsoft can do whatever the heck they want with their system and I dont give a rats a$$. If you dont like it, buy a Mac.Amen. If you don't like the way a company writes their OS, then write your own OS!!!

[nagromme]

Does nobody understand that you lose quality this way? :rolleyes:
Of course that can happen, but more accurately: you have the choice to lose quality OR disk space. You DON'T have to lose quality.

Burn a CD from the Windows Media store of your choice. The CD will have exactly the full quality of the download you purchased. Then rip the CD into iTunes as Apple Lossless (or WAV if you prefer). Again, exactly the full quality--and a much smaller file than normal CD audio too. But not AS small as MP3/MP4/AAC, so you have given up some storage space. If you choose to save storage space and use AAC, then you have second level of loss introduced, as you say. Some will notice the difference, some won't.

If I wanted to buy a few songs that I could only get from a non-iTunes (Windows-only) store, then that's what I'd use: Apple Lossless. A few MB lost here and there, but no quality lost. If I wanted to buy ALL my songs from a Windows-only store, then I'd lose even more storage--to the point of possibly having to pay more for a larger iPod capacity. But that's a choice I have.

[dernhelm]

I like choice, but I also think Apple is within their rights to compete against the Microsoft monopoly by creating iTunes and iPod as a system together (which is not entirely closed).

[snip]

Now if Apple used their iPod success, say, to start calculatedly killing off mobile phone makers in order to sell a mediocre Apple phone line that couldn't compete on its own merits, THAT would be monopoly abuse MS-style, and I would NOT be OK with that.


I agree with your views entirely here. You know, I think the biggest "win" Microsoft has had with the whole anti-trust thing is to propogate an incorrect view of what they actually did wrong. Too many people look at the whole fiasco and walk away with "monopoly == unethical", or even "monopoly == illegal". Neither of which is true. But Microsoft has somehow been able to spin things so that anyone (other than themselves, of course) who makes a closed platform is somehow being shady.

WMA is closed as well, no one has rights to that platform except Microsoft. But because they choose to license it to everyone and their brother (for a fee of course) they are somehow viewed as being the good guys here. The whole thing is ridiculous. The DRM used in WMA by Microsoft is exactly as closed as the DRM used in ACC (FairPlay) by Apple. Apple just doesn't license their DRM to anyone. They don't collect fees, and in return no one is authorized to use it.

It is that simple. Apple is under no legal, ethical, or moral obligation to license fairplay, and they NEVER will be - regardless of the amount of market share they obtain with it. Now at some point they may deem it financially advantageous to license it, but that would be based on their situation and market conditions. Not any laws that are currently in place.

And even if they were found in abuse of some monopoly power (note that they do not have a monopoly, yet, at least not in any legal sense) it is still unlikely that the courts could force them to license fairplay as part of their sanctions. They might, of course, if it was part of some "arrangement" they arrived at, but any speculation here is completely insane since it is predicated on a pretty long string of unlikely events. Not that this seems to stop anyone... :rolleyes:

[Randall]

Of course that can happen, but more accurately: you have the choice to lose quality OR disk space. You DON'T have to lose quality.

Burn a CD from the Windows Media store of your choice. The CD will have exactly the full quality of the download you purchased. Then rip the CD into iTunes as Apple Lossless (or WAV if you prefer). Again, exactly the full quality--and a much smaller file than normal CD audio too. But not AS small as MP3/MP4/AAC, so you have given up some storage space. If you choose to save storage space and use AAC, then you have second level of loss introduced, as you say. Some will notice the difference, some won't.

If I wanted to buy a few songs that I could only get from a non-iTunes (Windows-only) store, then that's what I'd use: Apple Lossless. A few MB lost here and there, but no quality lost. If I wanted to buy ALL my songs from a Windows-only store, then I'd lose even more storage--to the point of possibly having to pay more for a larger iPod capacity. But that's a choice I have.
Exactly what the hell is the point of using a lossless codec on a lossy audio file??

[nagromme]

Oh, but closed minded apple users on this site believe: no other company is allowed to control their products and how they are used, and access, EXCEPT Apple. If this Apple, all is good, any other company, and its a big no no.

I'll throw out a possibility for discussion here...

Maybe, just maybe, NOT all ways to "control your product" are equal. Maybe there are ways to "control your product" that do more harm than other ways.

Maybe the way Microsoft has "controlled their product" by using their Windows OS monopoly to break into OTHER realms is more objectionable than Apple "controlling their product" by keeping their music offerings together as one.

If you think what Apple has done here is really in the same league as Microsoft, and it bothers you just as much, that's a perfectly valid opinion and I have no objection to you holding it.

But there IS another opinion that's very valid: the opinion that there ARE important differences between what Microsoft has done and what Apple has done with music, and that Apple's success is based on quality, while Microsoft's is less so.

Now, that may change: Apple using their music success to lock other, better companies out of video, while offering mediocre video services themselves would be an example. (There ARE ways to grow iTunes into video without violating antitrust laws--it's not like Apple can't ever do video just because they are successful with audio. But there may also be ways that DO violate the law, and I hope Apple doesn't cross that line. That would be Microsoft-like.)

[nagromme]

Exactly what the hell is the point of using a lossless codec on a lossy audio file??
The point is the one YOU raised: adding loss is something to avoid.

Compress a music file a SECOND time and it can sound worse than the original compression. Isn't that the objection you made above?

Apple Lossless avoids that.

Take a GIF, save it as a JPEG. Double compression. Ugly. Take the same GIF and save it as a lossless PNG. NO double compression. Better quality. There IS a point to using a lossless codec on a lossy file. The point is to avoid the problem you stated above.

[Randall]

The point is the one YOU raised: adding loss is something to avoid.

Compress a music file a SECOND time and it can sound worse than the original compression. Isn't that the objection you made above?

Apple Lossless avoids that.

Take a GIF, save it as a JPEG. Double compression. Ugly. Take the same GIF and save it as a lossless PNG. NO double compression. Better quality. There IS a point to using a lossless codec on a lossy file. The point is to avoid the problem you stated above.Ok I guess that is a workable solution to avoid further loss... but a better solution would be just to leave it alone, and have maximum compression/quality ratio.

[nagromme]

Ok I guess that is a workable solution to avoid further loss... but a better solution would be just to leave it alone, and have maximum compression/quality ratio.
Agreed. No trade-offs that way.

Better yet, sell us lossless files :)

[Randall]

Agreed. No trade-offs that way.

Better yet, sell us lossless files :)That would be awesome, but I'm guessing that online music store providers are too cheap to use that kind of bandwidth for us, even if we are paying for the song itself. The first music store that decides to provide lossless compression will have my undivided attention (regardless of DRM, which will easily be circumvented with any recompression of our choice.)

...hmm prehaps that is another resason why lossless isn't available too.

[Stella]

Microsoft still make Apple look like Angels ( just about ) due to their ( ms ) abuses in the past.

I understand that iPod and iTunes / iTMS is supposed to be a package - designed for ease of use and to ensure a quality that Apple want its users to enjoy.

However, the world isn't this simple. People like having choice - the iPod and iTunes shouldn't be mutually ( sp. ) inclusive. To tell people ( not you nagromme ) that they should either use the iPod or something else and stop complaining is arrogant ( and short sighted ).

Other music stores will catch up to iTMS, then what for Apple - license out Fairplay in an act of desparation?

Talking about video content - I wonder how long it is going to take for apple to offer full sized ( i.e., not iPod ) content available for download? At the moment its to encourage people to buy 5G iPods..



I'll throw out a possibility for discussion here...

Maybe, just maybe, NOT all ways to "control your product" are equal. Maybe there are ways to "control your product" that do more harm than other ways.

Maybe the way Microsoft has "controlled their product" by using their Windows OS monopoly to break into OTHER realms is more objectionable than Apple "controlling their product" by keeping their music offerings together as one.

If you think what Apple has done here is really in the same league as Microsoft, and it bothers you just as much, that's a perfectly valid opinion and I have no objection to you holding it.

But there IS another opinion that's very valid: the opinion that there ARE important differences between what Microsoft has done and what Apple has done with music, and that Apple's success is based on quality, while Microsoft's is less so.

Now, that may change: Apple using their music success to lock other, better companies out of video, while offering mediocre video services themselves would be an example. (There ARE ways to grow iTunes into video without violating antitrust laws--it's not like Apple can't ever do video just because they are successful with audio. But there may also be ways that DO violate the law, and I hope Apple doesn't cross that line. That would be Microsoft-like.)

[Super Dave]

Some people like choice... its not black and white and wrong just to say 'ignorant or crazy'.<snip>

Not to get oversly semantic, but the poser did say that they were ignorant or crazy people, not that they were ignorant and crazy BECAUSE they used something other than iTunes.

Maybe they know a few insane and/or uninformed individuals. I know I do. :rolleyes:

David :cool:

[Super Dave]

Amen. If you don't like the way a company writes their OS, then write your own OS!!!

Kinda. What happens if you like Windows and don't like Messenger? I'm not sure what it's like now, but there was a time when it would take you 8 days of google research to figure out how to get it turned bloody off.

I personally think that's what makes Apple's situation a little better. If you like the iPod and not iTunes you can do it. If you like iTunes and not the iPod you can do it. And if you like the iTunes Music Store and not the iP...oh wait. Just kidding. You know what you're getting into with the iTunes Music Store. A store isn't like an operating system. You can get music down the street at the record store that's as good or better quality. With an OS well you can definitely get something better than Windows, but it won't run Windows software. Microsoft makes you use multiple Microsoft programs. Apple lets you use the products you want for the most part. The gentleman or lady who mentioned Airport Express had a point. Sorta.

David :cool:

[Sunrunner]

Microsoft still make Apple look like Angels ( just about ) due to their ( ms ) abuses in the past.

I understand that iPod and iTunes / iTMS is supposed to be a package - designed for ease of use and to ensure a quality that Apple want its users to enjoy.

However, the world isn't this simple. People like having choice - the iPod and iTunes shouldn't be mutually ( sp. ) inclusive. To tell people ( not you nagromme ) that they should either use the iPod or something else and stop complaining is arrogant ( and short sighted ).

Other music stores will catch up to iTMS, then what for Apple - license out Fairplay in an act of desparation?

Talking about video content - I wonder how long it is going to take for apple to offer full sized ( i.e., not iPod ) content available for download? At the moment its to encourage people to buy 5G iPods..


Youve missed the sales strategy completely. From Apples perspective, the iTMS only exists as a virtual loss-leader to encourage sales of the IPOD. Why the heck would they want to make it a loss leader for other players as well??!!?? Apple doesnt give a rats a$$ about iTMS beyond the extent that it effects iPod (and Macs to a lesser extent) sales.

[Stella]

Nope, I haven't, I know what iTMS is for ( its been stated more than enough times) - to sell iPods.

Apple didn't think they'd make a profit, and they didn't care. As it turns out, iTMS is doing rather better and are making a small profit. iTMS is not a loss leader, anymore.

I think Apple care more about iTMS these days than they once may have done.

Apple hope / want iPod sales to encourage people to switch to Mac computers. The side effects of the iPod success ( not lack of ) will filter through and have an affect on the entire Apple product range.

Youve missed the sales strategy completely. From Apples perspective, the iTMS only exists as a virtual loss-leader to encourage sales of the IPOD. Why the heck would they want to make it a loss leader for other players as well??!!?? Apple doesnt give a rats a$$ about iTMS beyond the extent that it effects iPod (and Macs to a lesser extent) sales.

[evilgEEk]

It was great to see Crash Test Dummies as a sample.

Jerry
http://www.crashtestdummies.net
Ha ha ha! Nice shameless plug there, Jerry. I love CTD, so I agree it was nice to see them mentioned.

[nagromme]

Other music stores will catch up to iTMS, then what for Apple - license out Fairplay in an act of desparation?
I know what you are saying. My hope: when other music stores get as good as iTMS, what will happen is that Apple will compete! Improve their offering in response, rather than rely on the iPod crutch by licensing Fairplay to other player makers. (In a sense, licensing Fairplay would be leveraging their "iPod monopoly" in that situation, while keeping their closed system and improving iTMS to beat the newcomers would be more like real competition.)


Talking about video content - I wonder how long it is going to take for apple to offer full sized ( i.e., not iPod ) content available for download? At the moment its to encourage people to buy 5G iPods..
Right now, it's a toe in the water. The next step in quality will demand huge bandwidth and storage (for Apple AND users). Each download will take 4x as long, and your video library will take 4x the space on your computer (assuming they went from 320x240 to 640x480--to say nothing of high-def). The market for those huge files might turn out to be smaller than the market for the small ones--it depends on how many buyers are just not thinking or caring about the quality details.

The other factor is probably the content owners. They may want to see the system (and piracy protection) proven before they let high-quality versions loose. It's a toe in the water for them too.

But the next phase will come in time!

[iMeowbot]

Does nobody understand that you lose quality this way? :rolleyes:
In real life, not many people really care. Home tape dubbing was far worse for losing stuff.

[d.perel]

Google could be a powerful ally. I don't however think they be a threat or even a big splash on web-music in the long run.
Plus, don't they make about 5 cents a song through linking to the music store? Its like search-link advertising all over again

[VanNess]

Oddly enough, I had just posted this tip (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=1980622#post1980622) earlier about how to use Safari to search iTunes in the OS X tips and tricks thread.

The new Google service is great because it provides direct links to iTunes songs and albums - if Google's new service can figure out that you're actually searching for music. Some album names, etc., are bound to be ambiguous in that regard. And you can just type right into Google's search box, but the tip is better because it's more direct and fool-proof if you're already surfing the net on Safari, because it hooks in directly to iTunes.

For example, there was an article today on Yahoo about a new album called "The Rising Tide." Selecting the album title and right clicking it to search Google produced the result in the first attached pic.

However, selecting the album title and choosing "search for album" in my bookmarks (see tip) produced the result in the second attached pic.

[iris_failsafe]

google and Apple together, it seems Microsoft now can believe in perfect storms.

Whou would have thought 8 years ago that the mighty Micorsoft could actually be beaten...

[Bonte]

Current State of iPod:
iTunes music works
No one elses does
=perfect interoperability

Possible future of iPod
itunes music works
Others work
= not perfect interoperability?!

Is this based on monopolies are cool as long as its Apple? I mean really how can you assume others having access to sell music is going to hurt interoperability? It's not like other people are going to be rewriting the bios with every song dl.

Monopolies aren't bad per-se (walkman, kodak ...), its just sucks if they (MS for instance) use one monopoly to force exclusive contracts and create other monopolies in the process. MS got away with it for to long and now they pay. The iPod is for sale in the stores side by side with the other players, isn't sold with a loss (to eliminate competitors), iTunes is far from the only music service and not the cheapest.

Apple won fair 'n square.

[Swift]

I discovered, at work, that people didn't necessarily understand this at first. A music search isn't immediately identifiable, and you have to click around to get to the full album list, etc.

Do this-- type "music:" first. It goes straight to the full database page with all the album covers.

[fatfish]

What a load of..........

I don't find the google music search much help, too much work to get where I want to be, think I'll stick with searching itms for music I want to buy. Its just so much easier.

[Sunrunner]

What a load of..........

I don't find the google music search much help, too much work to get where I want to be, think I'll stick with searching itms for music I want to buy. Its just so much easier.


The service is certainly not the end al be all of cool things, just one more way to find what you want, nothing much more exciting than that....

[Peace]

google and Apple together, it seems Microsoft now can believe in perfect storms.

Whou would have thought 8 years ago that the mighty Micorsoft could actually be beaten...

Google and Apple are NOT together.If you do any searching for music on Google you will find links to MSN music,J&R Music World and others.

Like I said before..Apple,along with MSN and others are merely paying Google for top-tiered link listings.A common corporate practice on the internet.

[nebben123]

Someone has excellent taste in music.

Of course, a better link would be to Throwing Muses (http://www.google.com/musicsearch?q=throwing+muses&btnG=Search+Music) =)


Ben