New iPods and New Music Service?

[MacRumors]

Despite several false starts, iPods continue to be expected shortly with minor updates. Features such as color screens and FW800 are not expected according to reliable rumors.

The iPod updates may, however, bring us a new unexpected service from Apple.

Sources report that Apple will be introducing an MP3 music-downloading service to users. The service partner to provide the music has not yet been identified, but songs are expected to cost $0.99 per song.

Dedicated readers may recall a similar rumor which made our 2002 Rumor Reject list with this anonymous Slashdot post.

In the future, you'll (assuming we can cut a deal with Apple Records on that nasty trademark matter) be able to plug you iPod into your Mac, browse a library of songs via iTunes, and download them directly to your iPod over broadband or AirPort. Micro-payment (well, semi-micro; on the order of a dollar per song) will be handled through the .Mac "one click" system, which Apple licensed from Amazon and already uses in iPhoto for buying photographic prints on line.

While, Anonymous Slashdot posts are certainly not a source of reliable information, it appears there may be some truth to this particular post.

[iJon]

i dont think apple would do that. i think they know too many people out there download music. all these pay for music sites flop. i dont think even apple could get it going. i know i wouldnt sign up.

iJon

[vniow]

If it had a wide selection unlike all of those other pay for music download services and you could use the MP3 like any other MP3 than I'd go for it.

[luiss]

If you can download a 100% pure, no strings attached, MP3 file for $0.99, I would be all over that.

[vniow]

Originally posted by iJon
all these pay for music sites flop.

They flop because there's a very limited selection of music to choose from, the music files are either streaming so you can't save them or they're copy protected WMA files (or something else propietary).
If there was a site for pay which I could download music from with an extremely wide selection and I could do with the MP3 file with what I can do with a CD than I'd gladly pay 0.99 a song.

The pay-to-download can work, it just has to be done right.

Edit: And I hope they can have different selections of bitrates, even though I have dial-up I'd gladly wait longet for a higher quality file than some horrible souding 128kbs MP3.

<sigh> I miss the days of Audiogalaxy.

[MrBillGates]

I think $0.99 is a good value... I think the service would be successfull. Sometimes downloading songs can be a pain and you never really know what quality you're gonna get.

[Niknar]

I think this is a very good idea.

Think of all the .Mac members that would sigh up for this.

If this dose come true I will be very happy :-)

[deepkid]

I never conceived using and enjoying mp3s on such a large scale before having my iPod.
It's amazing how things change so rapidly in these times.

I've never taken .Mac seriously, but depending on the repetoire that would be offered with this rumored online service, it just might persuade me to give it a try.

[esome]

One of my favorite songs happens to be over an hour long so $0.99 would be a steal.

[Maclicious]

I'd love to have the option of paying .99 for a mpg, no strings attached. YES! But, don't make me pay a monthly subscription fee--I'm already paying that with my .Mac subscription, right?

If this were a .Mac service, who would sign up for .Mac now who doesn't already have it?

[swahilibill]

when will all of this stuff appear, i want a new iPod and i dont want to WAIT!!!!...lol(sory bout that) I just want to know when these new iPod will be out!!!???

[iGod]

Well...if this service is designed for the iPod, clearly we're not talking streaming audio here. But how could they possibly control the proliferation of these songs?

Originally posted by vniow
They flop because there's a very limited selection of music to choose from, the music files are either streaming so you can't save them or they're copy protected WMA files (or something else propietary).
If there was a site for pay which I could download music from with an extremely wide selection and I could do with the MP3 file with what I can do with a CD than I'd gladly pay 0.99 a song.

The pay-to-download can work, it just has to be done right.

Edit: And I hope they can have different selections of bitrates, even though I have dial-up I'd gladly wait longet for a higher quality file than some horrible souding 128kbs MP3.

<sigh> I miss the days of Audiogalaxy.

[vniow]

Originally posted by Maclicious

If this were a .Mac service, who would sign up for .Mac now who doesn't already have it?

I would in an instant.

As soon as I got broadband.http://forums.macrumors.com/attachme...&postid=252654

[job]

Originally posted by iGod
But how could they possibly control the proliferation of these songs?

They couldn't if these were actual, no frills, no strings attached .mp3 files.

Once one person buys it, it's only a matter of time before it shows up on the P2P networks.

[edit: This also makes me wonder how they will convince people to move away from the free, albeit illegal P2P networks to a pay-per-download service. If the same songs are already available for free download, why would anyone sign up for this service? For that matter, why wouldn't people just go out and buy the CD? For the price one would have to pay to download the entire album, you could purchase it at a retailer.]

Unless there was some form of digital encryption supported by the next update of iTunes, the proliferation of the music in question would be impossible to stop.

[bennetsaysargh]

i would love something like that all the way, especially since i miss audiogalaxy too and limewire sucks soooo bad. but i also want new iPods ASAP, i've been waiting a long time to get one.

[FrankMtl65]

Seeing that Roxio is about to revive Napster:

http://biz.yahoo.com/rc/030224/media...napster_1.html


Frank
(newcomer to this forum

[steeleclipse]

As long as there still half decent places to download half decent quality music, I don't think that there will be many partakers. Can you tell me you honestly feel bad about multi-millionaire artists' royalties?

I don't know where it is, but somewhere floating around on the internet, Courtney Love wrote an article condoning MP3 swapping for one simple reason: the great piracy debate is not over the "starving artist" but rather the fat-cat music exec.

They only care about piracy because they can't line their pockets and other fat-cat shareholder's pockets as much as they used to.

HALF the people that pirate now are newbies that jumped on the bandwagon because of the record execs making it so obvious that MP3 sharing is such an easy thing to get into.

And movies? Come on. What the heck are they so worried about? The quality is NOT NEAR the quality of DVD, which is only about 15-20 bucks. Besides, for the people that don't have TV out cards, most people don't wanna watch some crappy format in front of there 17" CRT for 2 hours anyways.

If they want to look at a REAL piracy issue, they need to focus more on software, because companies are just going to go down the tubes or quality is going to suck, because of lost revenue.

Fhew! Let me breath...

[steeleclipse]

oops i guess italics dont work

[vniow]

Originally posted by iGod
But how could they possibly control the proliferation of these songs?

The honor system?

Seiously, some of the main reasons why people P2P over pay-to-download (besides the obvious lack of payment) is because it has the music that they want and they're free to do with the MP3 what they wish, no copy protection, no nothing.

The reasons why I would use a pay service would be:
Wide selection of songs, out of all the P2Ps I've tried, Audiogalaxy had it best I think, I could find obscure local arists that haven't played in more than a few clubs, or some snippets from a radio show, plus it had community which was the most important factor over song selection.
I could use the MP3 like a CD I bought (i.e. no copy protection)
There was at least an option for high bitrate songs.
Reliable downloads.
No spyware.


If I had the bandwith and the ca$h, I'd go for something like that in a second.

[Gateguy]

I would pay to play

[weev]

The pay per song idea has life, especially if you get a high quality (224 Kbps) file so it sounds as near to CD quailty for the audiophile ear.

Pirate songs are way less than this and only good for previewing songs, IMHO.

Damn it, I have Linn hi fi (linn.co.uk) and only want the best sound. And it seems pretty straight up that mp3's will eventually - in time - replace CDs and ALL our music purchases will be through this type of method.

Go Apple, GO!

weev

[job]

Originally posted by vniow
I could use the MP3 like a CD I bought (i.e. no copy protection)
There was at least an option for high bitrate songs.

So why don't you just buy the CD yourself and rip them to what ever bitrate you want?

The cost you will spend for the download for an entire album is roughly equal to the price of a new CD.

[steeleclipse]

hey Vniow:

Please elighten me...

Are you the queen of unwanted email, or the queen of canned luncheon meat???

Your reply would be greatly appreciated.

[kfury]

I've seen a lot of comments on this thread about people being arbitrarily pass along purchased mp3s to others willy-nilly.

Duh folks, if you buy a real CD and pop it into your mac, it's going to encode them into mp3s that you could pass along just as easily.

Forget albums, and think mp3-centric for a second: If you use iTunes as your primary music repository and you want a specific new song or album, you have a few options:

* Leave your computer and go to the record store to buy it
* Buy it from amazon or other online vendor and wait for several days
* Use a p2p tool to pirate it and get it fastest
* Use a one-click service to get it legally and instantly.

No matter which route you go you have an mp3 that could be passed on to others, but right now the only way to get instant gratification is to break the law. That would change with one-click downloads of mp3s.

One-click is easier than pirating because you're sure of what you're getting. It also happens to be legal. And those who pay for mp3s are probably not those who will turn around and propogate them to the web at large. Morality begets morality.

The point is that piracy is work, going to the record store is work, and ordering from amazon and waiting is work. An instant download and micropayment system is not work, and if there's one thing that people like less than paying money, it's working.

This will succeed.

[vniow]

Originally posted by hitman
So why don't you just buy the CD yourself and rip them to what ever bitrate you want?

The cost you will spend for the download for an entire album is roughly equal to the price of a new CD.

If that's the case, then I'd just go and buy the CD.

But what about all the songs that aren't on CDs? Unreleased stuff, live tracks, some obscure album that got lost in the back of some record store?

There's an immense catalog of music that hasn't got transferred to CD yet so you either have to browse record stores for it which could be time-consuming and you may not find it at all, or you could try eBay, but beware dedicated bidders, or you could browse the web for some online store that sells them.

That's the kind of selection I'm talking about, not things you can buy on a CD