Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
.mac could be a small portion of the world, but the people paying for .mac are paying for their stuff. That way they could be the target market. Remember that they need a paying market, and not a big possible market that doesn't has money.

I bet that all the nay-sayers in this forum only buy cheap stuff so they are not the most interesting market. I, for one, would use this service, just like I enjoy my .mac account.
 
I think this is a great idea, Apple will be the first big company to endorse something like this, and it will bring a new revenue stream in for them. This shows me that they are becoming more of a services related company, which can only help them. I do not pay for music now, but if Apple comes out with this software, i will.
 
Originally posted by jethroted
I won't be paying for music any time soon. Sorry, but when it's available for free, how many people do they expect to pay for it? This seems like a waste of time, and apple will drop it like a sack of potatoes when hardly anyone buys music from them.
My thought is that Apple is counting on most people not being total jerks. Take that however you like.
 
Nothing to keep a windows person fro having .mac, I'm sure many PC users do, you an mount just like on a mac. However, there is no iTunes for Windows, and I don't know of any ac support software in windows, so no PCers can use these product as is.
 
huh?

I don't get it. Is everyone just excited because this is an apple thing or because there is something truly innovative? While I appreciate that we all should be willing to pay for the music, I'm not sure what about this service will draw people when there are 20 ways to get the music for free and probably get a better selection at that.

And why would this make anyone a switcher? I've read the news releases and it just doesn't seem like anything too special other than it will be well integrated with iTunes.
 
Originally posted by jethroted
I won't be paying for music any time soon. Sorry, but when it's available for free, how many people do they expect to pay for it? This seems like a waste of time, and apple will drop it like a sack of potatoes when hardly anyone buys music from them.

Yeah, I definitely see this point of contention, talk about an uphill battle. However, especially as of late, I've noticed the rampant 'poisoning' of songs on P2P networks (looped choruses, beeping, etc.) - of course, this isn't going to stop people from using these services, they'll just evolve into something different (say, smaller, trusted groups of users, for example). In having said that, I don't really have the time to invest in anything more involved than the current crop of tools (Limewire, Acquisition, etc.)... If I could get _rare_, specialized and mainstream songs all at a quality _I_ can choose, at a price much, much lower than a physical copy, I'd be for it.

The thing is - I do mean _much_ cheaper - I like liner notes!!!! For example, if we took this arbitrary amount of $1, times it by 11 songs (or so), that's $11. Potentially US$. I can go buy a CD for LESS, in CDN$. :eek:

Just my 2 coppers.
 
Originally posted by Codemonkey

The thing is - I do mean _much_ cheaper - I like liner notes!!!! For example, if we took this arbitrary amount of $1, times it by 11 songs (or so), that's $11. Potentially US$. I can go buy a CD for LESS, in CDN$. :eek:

I want much chaeper too, but where are you getting these under $11 CDs? Most CDs I see are an average of$17-$20 US. If Cds really cost $10, I think more people would pay for them.
 
why would i use this when i can find free songs everywhere else and i guarentee they will not have hard to find or anything on the hundreds of independent labels. what a waste of time and energy. go back to work on the G5, thank you.
 
music industry

this will not amount to much of a revenue stream, more a switching schema. the music industry would feel themselves generous giveing apple 2%. this is about apple starting something great. the music industry is a bunch of vampires.
 
Originally posted by twelve
why would i use this when i can find free songs everywhere else and i guarentee they will not have hard to find or anything on the hundreds of independent labels. what a waste of time and energy.
nice flame bait :)

You know what? Grown up people do pay for their music. That's a habit that comes with owning money (through a dayjob).

Children like these posters won't buy music even if it was 0,50$ a song, that's just nature.

I don't even know how to download (quality) music for free, and so do the adult people I know.
 
Originally posted by drastik
I want much chaeper too, but where are you getting these under $11 CDs? Most CDs I see are an average of$17-$20 US. If Cds really cost $10, I think more people would pay for them.

You're not understanding. Follow with me here:

$11 US = $16.25 CAD. I can buy CD's, most of the time, for about $14.99-$15.99 CAD.

Even if they _were_ more expensive CD's, say $17.99 CAD, the extra 2 dollars for liner notes, a nice silkscreened CD and a hard-copy, etc. Well, you get the idea.

This is based upon two assumptions: There are an average of 11 songs per CD, and that the micro-payment will be ~$1 US.
 
Is that because record companies are no longer needed because of the reduced cost of recording? Also what exactly is the record company providing? The artist can make and record the music, encode it, post it, and even advertise from start to finish. So why again are they needed? what do they give the consumer. But yes, being able to sample music would be required for me to care about this new apple service. I am not going to gamble even 1$ on a song that probably won't be that good. And if it will be perfect quality, and I can copy it to an iPod and cds, I guess that is ok unless an album has 22 songs!

I guess we will see
 
Originally posted by backspinner
I don't even know how to download (quality) music for free, and so do the adult people I know.

Well put. I don't know either. I can download music, but it's hardly 'quality'. Definitely not CD quality.

Besides, I'm guessing "twelve" is his/her age...

<ducks>
 
By Jon Healey, Times Staff Writer


Top executives at the major record companies have finally found an online music service that makes them excited about the digital future ? but it's only for Macs.

The new service was developed by Apple Computer Inc., sources said Monday, and offers users of Macintoshes and iPod portable music players many of the same capabilities that already are available from services previously endorsed by the labels. But the Apple offering won over music executives because it makes buying and downloading music as simple and non-technical as buying a book from Amazon.com.

"This is exactly what the music industry has been waiting for," said one person familiar with the negotiations between the Cupertino, Calif., computer maker and the labels. "It's hip. It's quick. It's easy. If people on the Internet are actually interested in buying music, not just stealing it, this is the answer."

That ease of use has music executives optimistic that the Apple service will be an effective antidote to surging piracy on the Internet, sources said.

Other legitimate music services have cumbersome technology and pricing plans ? motivated in part by the labels' demands for security ? that make them much harder to use than unauthorized online services, such as the Kazaa file-sharing system.

Although no licensing deals have been announced, sources close to the situation say at least four of the five major record companies have committed their music to the Apple service. It could be launched next month.

As promising as the new service is, however, there is a big limitation. Apple's products account for just a sliver of the total computer market ? less than 3% of the computers sold worldwide are Macs. The vast majority of the potential audience for downloadable music services uses machines that run Microsoft Corp.'s Windows software.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the service Monday, as did representatives from the five major record corporations ? Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group, Bertelsmann's BMG division and EMI Group.

The new service is so important to Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs that he personally demonstrated it to top executives at all five companies, sources said. More than a dozen music executives have visited Apple since last summer and came away enthusiastic.

The executives also like the massive marketing plan designed by Jobs to educate consumers about the service.

The plan contrasts sharply with Apple's previous marketing campaign for Macs, which rankled many music executives who felt it promoted piracy. Apple's advertisements were emblazoned with the mantra "rip, mix, burn," referring to the computers' ability to copy songs and record them onto CDs.

Although the iPod has been hailed by many critics as the best portable music player on the market, Mac users have been overlooked by most of the label-backed online music services, including Pressplay, MusicNet and Listen.com Inc.'s Rhapsody.

As a result, Mac users may find it easier to make unauthorized, free copies of songs through an online file-sharing service like LimeWire than to buy a copy through a label-sanctioned service. Apple hopes to change that situation with its new service, which is expected to be included in an updated edition of the iLife package of digital music, photo and movie software.

Sources said Apple will make the songs available for sale through a new version of iTunes, its software for managing music files on Macs. Users will be able to buy and download songs with a single click and transfer them automatically to any iPod they've registered with Apple.

Rather than make the songs available in the popular MP3 format, Apple plans to use a higher fidelity technology known as Advanced Audio Codec.

That approach allows the songs to be protected by electronic locks that prevent them from being played on more than one computer. Still, sources say, Apple wants to enable buyers to burn songs onto CDs. That feature would effectively remove the locks.

That's been a sticking point for executives at Sony, sources said. The other four major record companies, however, appear ready to license their music to the new service.

No details were available on the price of the service, although one source said it would be competitive with other services in the market. Pressplay, for example, charges just under $10 a month for unlimited downloads, plus about $1 for each song that can be burned to CD or transferred to a portable device
 
MOVE ON.... THIS IDEA IS JUST SO LAME AND SO YESTERDAY ...

99 cents per song is an outrageous price given the limitations. Let"s face it folks music is way overpriced in this Kazaa-dominated era that nothing short of a revolution in pricing will be acceptable .... just MHO
 
Guys ..let's think outside the box here.

Apple could start out with Music...and then use the same infrastructure to offer Video and Data in the future.

This is much larger than just Music. If Apple can work out a decent DRM policy that consumers don't balk on then it's well worth the effort.

As the poster above illustrates. The P2P networks are being poisoned with bogus files.

This is merely the first salvo in an attempt to mold Apple into more of a Service provider(which is potentially VERY profitable)

We should welcome this with open arms as it's not going to harm us in any way.


MOVE ON.... THIS IDEA IS JUST SO LAME AND SO YESTERDAY ...

99 cents per song is an outrageous price given the limitations. Let"s face it folks music is way overpriced in this Kazaa-dominated era that nothing short of a revolution in pricing will be acceptable .... just MHO


It's not the idea that needs to be revolutionary it's the implementation. The pricing is not outrageous as most albums only have 3-4 good songs. That means you're "Album Price" is priced according to how much of the Album you like. Sounds fair and equitable.


What Apple needs to do is offer. Top Notch files.

I'd include all the proper tagging and even include lyrics by default when possible. The files need to be beyond reproach here to fly from the crap that's on Kazaa et al.
 
I can't really see how this is going to work for me.

For example, I was in Central London yesterday. I dropped into HMV and picked up 5 CD's for 22 UKP (about $35). It was all back catalogue but very popular stuff.

You can pick up more recent music at a good price in shops and on the 'net and eBay.

So why I should spend even $7 downloading a CD when I can have a nice, shiny silver disc with a printed sleeve (that is also my backup if my iPod/Mac blows up or is stolen?). I don't get it.

I can only see myself using the service if there are some seriously rare tracks that are impossible to get on CD.

littlejim
---------

He's fallen in the water
 
Originally posted by patman_Z
[snip]The artist can make and record the music, encode it, post it, and even advertise from start to finish. [snip]
I guess we will see

This is what independent artists have been doing on sites like MP3.com for years. The revenue can actually help with their expenses, if they get popular enough. I know a few local bands that still use MP3.com to help market their music!

If this new Apple-branded music service had the ability to let indie bands distribute their music as well, I think that it would introduce independent groups to brand new audiences...

[edited for spelling]
 
I'm still cautious on this one. I personally find AAC to have very few advantages over MP3. You only reduce file size by 30%, and lose some quality in the process. Now if Apple could come up with a lossless codec to use instead. And I know I don't like the part about not being able to put downloaded music on more than one computer... in order to prevent putting a backup on an external HD and then hooking that up to another computer, it'll have to be tied to the HD and iPod. Which means, unless you have an iPod, you can't back up the music at all, meaning that the next virus, magnet, or sudo rm / -r turns your music into so much wasted cash. I do like the idea of free songs, or discounts, to .Mac members though.
 
Originally posted by backspinner
Children like these posters won't buy music even if it was 0,50$ a song, that's just nature.

I don't even know how to download (quality) music for free, and so do the adult people I know.

You touch on the very arguement that people make with the RIAA and software companies.

Those that weren't going to pay for it to begin with aren't going to pay no matter what cost it is, how easy it is or how hard it is. Kazaa will eventually get to the point of being "napstered" - a new service will take it's place.

Just because someone downloads music for free does NOT mean they are stealing it

For instance, I downloaded the whole Chicago soundtrack, liked it, bought it.

I downloaded a whole Enya album, like it, bought it

I downloaded one track from the Solaris soundtrack, the rest the album is crap, haven't bought it, will keep the song, and enjoy listening to it.

If you can honestly sit 10 people in a room and ask them to listen to music Mp3 128-192k encoded and a CD ; then ask which is better or which is the Mp3 - and get them to tell the difference every time or even 2 times out of 10 then ..... well, you know, I'll give you an imaginary $100 or something.
 
Just to be clear, I am not saying music should be free, and I haven't downloaded it since before napster got on the radar. I think that more of the profits from the music should go to the artist, and not the recording cartel known as the RIAA. I also think that artists should be real, and write their own music. and maybe if things aligned properly we wouldn't have "reality shows" like pop stars. manufactured music is a bad thing.
 
Originally posted by backspinner
nice flame bait :)

You know what? Grown up people do pay for their music. That's a habit that comes with owning money (through a dayjob).

Children like these posters won't buy music even if it was 0,50$ a song, that's just nature.

I don't even know how to download (quality) music for free, and so do the adult people I know.

i work 9 to 5 everyday just like everyone else and i purchase plenty of music, probably 100 times as much as you do. a service like this is geared towards lazy out of touch people to be scammed into buying low quality music from companies completely out of touch with the music scene already. Can only play on one device, PLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEASE. Apple should be enabling the consumer with technology which gets rid of these concepts and back to providing kick butt hardware.
 
I am all for Apple getting into this business. However, a 99 cent per song model is FAR too much.

Singles, as they used to exist, and still do EVERYWHERE but in the US, contain extra tracks, multimedia, and/or remixes... must of this content is better than the primary track. NONE of this will be translated, and therefore I will still have to go on XNap to get this stuff from my European friends.

For 99 cents, you get NO artwork, NO hardcopy backup, NO extra tracks. They have NO costs of producing CD's, buying cases, or printing liner notes. Moreover, the files will be COMPRESSED, whereas on CD they are not and therefore make the ideal backup master.

If I am to sacrifice all of this, it better be LOW cost, and my friends, 1 dollar per song just aint low cost enough. This is why the free services have worked, and the pay ones have not. Consumers aren't dummies. We know when we are being gouged. This service should be no more than 25 cents a song for an unfettered file. If one wants bonus tracks, uncompressed hard copy backup, artwork, liner notes, maybe 5.1 audio/dvd included (like Fischerspooner just released), then one can buy a CD... There, the whole is more than just the sum of its parts (the theoretical 10 25-cent tracks = $2.50).

The record companies have brought all their woes on themselves, by releasing horrid music, gouging consumers with mega-inflated prices, and killing off the singles market, which was the only way that a consumer "legally" could purchase a track without paying for tons of album-filler. Oh boo hoo RIAA, boo hoo.
 
Originally posted by drastik
I want much chaeper too, but where are you getting these under $11 CDs? Most CDs I see are an average of$17-$20 US. If Cds really cost $10, I think more people would pay for them.



Go to www.hmv.com and see for youself. Here in Canda you can buy brand new CD for less than 11$US and mint used CD for less than 11$CDN. I would never pay 1$US for a song unless I can copy it to a CD and I can sample it before buying.
 
if you wanted a whole album then this service would appeal to you. This is mainly for the albums were there are one or two of the songs which are worth listening to. You pay two bucks and get those songs...not the 9 other crappy ones and save 10 bucks. If the quality of the songs is high then this would be definetely worth is as the songs off kaaza are at a low bit rate and opften have pops and skips.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.