If the iTMS was unfettered by the RIAA...

Discussion in 'iPod' started by wrldwzrd89, May 19, 2005.

  1. wrldwzrd89 macrumors G5

    wrldwzrd89

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2003
    Location:
    Solon, OH
    #1
    I like the idea of the iTMS, but I think the RIAA is being much too heavy-handed in regulating it. I would use it if the RIAA realized that DRM doesn't work and abandoned it. I'd also appreciate the RIAA (if they have any control of this) allowing Apple to put as many different bit rates (and codecs) of music files as Apple wants to load their servers with. Does anyone agree with me? Does anyone have any other ideas for what changes would benefit the iTMS if it wasn't "tied down"?
     
  2. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #2
    I really doubt the bit rates are being controlled by the RIAA. They are set where they are purely for bandwith issues. Bandwith ain't free you know. The bigger the files, the more bandwith it takes, the higher the cost of the songs is going to be. not to mention a lot of people are sitll on dialup, so apple doesn't want to make the bit rates too high or it would take them forever to download a song (and supporting multiple bit rates is not a great solution either, since a lot of consumerse would jus be confused). Not to mention that bigger files mean less will fit on an iPod and that affects the marketing of those.

    So in short, the issue you ahve with iTunes has absolutley nothing to do with DRM or the RIAA. Its just simple business decision making. Apple could easily use other codecs and bit rates if they wanted to (still with drm of course)

    And its hard to say DRM doesn't work when apple is selling so many songs, and most fo the time the DRM is pretty invisible to the end users anyway. DRM done right isn't really a problem, and apple's done a pretty good job with it I think.
     
  3. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #3
    But allofmp3.com seems to be able to address the different rates well. If you have the bandwidth and dollars, then you can go higher.
     
  4. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #4

    I don't know much about allofmp3, but is it even actually legal. it seems to be a russian site right. Do they sell american music. If they are doing so with DRM, its an illegal site, so its not a good comparison. I also doubt they are anywhere near the scale of iTunes, and probably aren't giving money back to the copyright holders at the same level. But maybe allofmp3 is operating differently than I know. Apple barely makes a profit on iTMS as it is.

    I wouldn't be surprised if they upgraded the bit rate eventually, but I doubt you'll see a multitude of formats (why do you need more than one format anyway, if the DRM is in place, you'd still need a compatible player, and without the DRM, AAC is an open format that any player could use if they wanted to, or pick another format thats universal), or bit rates (again, why, if the quality is that important to you, no lossy format is going to be enough, so buy the CD).
     
  5. Norouzi macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2004
    Location:
    Philadelphia, PA
    #5
    I'd have to agree that multiple bitrates would not be a good idea for the iTMS considering the target market is Joe Schmo consumer who has no idea what a codec is or what it's for. Granted there are lots of music fan's who are super picky about the bitrate and codec used to encode, but the vast majority of consumers wants an easy to use system that is stright foward and simple. For this the iTMS is perfect.
     
  6. PlaceofDis macrumors Core

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2004
    #6
    the drm is restrictive, but there is a need for it as well. variable bit rates will hopefully come in the future as people demand better quality
     
  7. Chip NoVaMac macrumors G3

    Chip NoVaMac

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Northern Virginia
    #7
    I was not commenting on the legality of this site. Just that they are able to handle different bitrates on some of their collection.
     
  8. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #8

    I'm just saying its easy to offer a lot more when you get to keep more fo the profits. Apple undoubtedly could handle variable bit rates, there's no technical reason they couldn't. But they are restrained from doing so in my opinion at least in part because to legally run their business, they don't see a lot of profit.
     
  9. howard macrumors 68020

    howard

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    #9
    bandwidth shmandwidth.. if google can give away over 2 gigs in storage i think apple can supply lossless to the people who want it and pay for it even if it was more expensive... say $1.50 a song for lossless and $15 an album
     
  10. strider42 macrumors 65816

    strider42

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    #10

    storage does not equal bandwith. Totally different issues with entirely different infrastructurse and cost. and how many people actually use anywhere near 2 gigs of google mail storage. not many.

    That said, I'd certainly like to see apple offer lossless, perhaps at a price premium. But when the price gets closer to a CD, why not just get the CD and rip it yourself. You might even be able to get the CD cheaper in some cases. I guess people might pay for the convience of downloading, but I'm not sure.
     
  11. m-dogg macrumors 65816

    m-dogg

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2004
    Location:
    Connecticut
    #11
    that's what the band phish does with the concerts they sell at www.livephish.com - 128 mp3 is one price, and lossless is available at a higher price. everything is available in both formats and the explain the price difference in their FAQ as being due to the increased bandwith required for the larger files...
     

Share This Page