Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Branded Music Sharing Service...CONFIRMED??

I agree about mp3.com, that is a good start. My friend Ed does that and seems to do ok for himself. I still don't know if I would "rent music" like that. renting because :
1. there is no hard copy
2. your drive passes away, you could lose thousands and not be able to get them back
3. the only product that you are buying is a little mp4 formatted file for a buck a piece (that technically you license. not own) with no production cost, and only the bandwidth to pay for. no CD, no distribution, no shipping. just post a song and people download it.


it is a profitable thing, but I don't see it as a good deal. I have spent a few hundred dollars for the albums I own, which on my iPod is about 6 or 7 gig. about 1700 songs, few hundred for hard copies--almost 2 thousand for mp4s. another thing, what about bonus dvd's like the system of a down's Toxicity? will there be bonus mpeg4 videos for free too?
 
Originally posted by adzoox
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.
Click to expand...

lol the imaginary $100 that was too funny.

This is an interesting concept. I think there are a lot of people out there who would find it convenient to download music and not have to go to the store to get it (shut ins and lazy people come to mind ;) ).

This is going to come off bad probably, but I am still a little soar over how much Apple products cost (even though I love them). However, what better demographic then Apple users? They have enough money to pump into their hardware why not give them something else to spend their money on like this music service :D

Mike
 
Originally posted by snahabed

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.

This service should be no more than 25 cents a song for an unfettered file.
Click to expand...


I'm for it being reasonable, but 25 cents isn't enough. 79 cents or 99 cents is fair

Besides how do you know iTunes won't have a lyric viewer and album art visual plugin?

There are several iTunes plugins that do this kind of stuff now.

How do you KNOW that iTunes won't have buy one, get one mixed/remixed offers?
 
GOOD DEAL

Originally posted by chewbaccapits
I don't pay for music..I get them for free...With this service, I will support APPLE's venture and start to pay for it...It can only better our little computer company.
Click to expand...

Yup!!! 99c per song is a reasonable tag. I refuse to pay $12 for a CD with one good song. I will support Apple on this one!
 
Artists have every right to make money off of their work but I think everyone's love for P2P file sharing with music is the fact that we're just so fed up with the insane prices the music industry is charging for CD's. I mean come on, $15 for something that costs you less than $1 to make?

I want to compensate artists for their work, but I also hate going out to buy an entire CD for one song I've been looking for a comprehensive music download site like this that supports the Mac for a while now and if Apple could provide this to me, BONUS!

I'd like to see something with either a $10 a month or less for unlimited downloads or maybe in the range of $0.75 per song. But as for .Mac, I'd like to see the .Mac subscribers get a little "bonus" for their subscription. Let's face it, I'm paying $99 a year for my email address and to support the company I?ve love. I and many other .mac subscribers, and have no real use for the other services .mac offers. homepage.mac.com/username isn't exactly a great URL for your web site and iDisk service is spotty at best. I use iCards maybe twice a year and have better anti-virus software. If Apple were to kick in 10 free downloads a month for .mac users I?d keep my subscription active.

Apple ventured into the Windows market with the iPod so I have no problem with them supporting iTunes 4 but I do agree this could be a good reason to get any lingering Switchers. Though from a business point of view, Apple may need to market it to Windows, but perhaps with limited options.

I had all but decided not to buy an iPod but this might make it worth it. Put me on the list, I?ll buy if this is all it?s cracked up to be. Here?s hoping to sooner rather than later.

A side note, with the LA Times leaking the story this isn?t a small leak for Apple, this is pretty major public knowledge now. Do you think this will prompt them to push up their timetable at all?
 
Apple Music

Apple is the best company to bring paid music service into the public. Their innovation and creative ideas can really create an environment where the music industry doesn't feel cheated and the consumer doesn't feel threatened. People will pay for service if it works, and Apple has proven over the years that they are a company to be reckoned with.

This relationship with the music industry might also make the iPod the most indespensible electronic product for the next five years.
 
Not to open the door on pricing strategies but I think they should offer single song downloads for the 99 cents and maybe a cut rate for the entire album.

Imagine those stupid rap CDs with like 28 tracks most of them being little skits and mother f*%ker this and that, they would cost a fortune. ;)

Mike
 
I remember alot of naysayers with the iPod..."Apple going into an already crowded MP3 market will not work!!!", fast foward, one of the best MP3 players out there, hands down. This service, albeit, a very risky one, could be a great rabbit pulled out by APPLE's hat.
 
With the exception of rare albums or imports I don't pay more that $15 (pre-tax) for a CD so if you are paying $17-$20 you're shopping at the wrong store(s).


Originally posted by patman_Z
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
Click to expand...


If record companies were no longer needed they wouldn't exist. Studio time, touring, advertising, and videos all cost money. And yes bands can shoe-string it and get by but if you want to "go national" that takes a lot more $$$ than most unsigned or indie label bands can afford. Record companies give bands money for all those things up front and hope that the band will be able to generate enough to pay them back. Record companies are like movie studio's in that the majority of their ventures fail to generate a profit or break even. Even though I hate mindless summer blockbuster films I realize that w/o them raking in the dough many quality indie flix probably wouldn't get released nationally in the US. Same thing goes for music. I'm not a fan of Ms. Spears or N'Sync but hopefully w/the money they generate the labels will sign a talented but less mainstream band that I might like.

The fundamental purprose for record companies and movie studio's is needed, but like most everything else envolving humans creed and corruption have f((ked it up...

I'm not big on the on the dial-a-song method. I'll d/l songs off a P2P network to see if I like it. If I do I'll buy the CD, if I don't I trash the songs. I guess I like having something tanglible <sp?> plus I like getting cover art and inserts and such.


Lethal
 
Originally posted by adzoox

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.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. On a decent stereo system you (and everybody else) will be able to tell the difference 10 times out of 10.
 
It occurs to me that iTunes 4 is supposed to have rondevous support for playlists and files. This means that playing on one computer is moot, the files are just stored in one place but accessable by all on the network. This makes a lot of since, as wanting to have it on your Mac is natural, and is afforded ny this technology. Wnting to have it on a friend's MAc is not legal, and not possible with this tech.

Thats great, I really hope it happens this way.
 
what about e-music type service

i tried e-music for 3 months and really liked the service, lots of rare european stuff that is almost impossible to find as well as alot if indie bands and some other obscure stuff, plus no restrictions on downloading or burning all for 14.99 a month for 3 months. My only problem with the service (the reason I did not renew my subscription was the bitrate (128). Now if Apple could bring about a service like this with one pricing tier, unlimited downloads and you can do with the music what you like all in mp4 at a good bitrate, well then sign me up, cause I don't have the space for alot of cd's nor do i care about liner notes. If anyone can make a service like this work it will be Apple. Also I think someone posted an article where it said something about transfering the music to Apple registered Ipods; what about a 2 Ipod house, would that mean only one person gets access to certain songs, that would be a major bummer.
 
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
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.
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't need to come up with a lossless codec; a free, opensource codec already exists. flac.sourceforge.net also, ogg doesn't have any DRM and sounds, imo, better than mp3 at the same bitrate (and size). Apple has stated that they will not support DRM in their OS
 
If you're paying $15 a cd, you need to ditch your store and look somewhere else.
 
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
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.
Click to expand...

where did you see/read this?

arn
 
Originally posted by GeeYouEye
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.
Click to expand...

I think it would be really cool if you had an account at Apples music service that "remembers" which tracks you've bought, and these tracks you should be able to download again and again so you won't waste your hard earned money if the computer dies...
 
Audio Quality ..

Originally posted by the future
I'm sorry, but that is just ridiculous. On a decent stereo system you (and everybody else) will be able to tell the difference 10 times out of 10.
Click to expand...

I have done it, and no one, even if side by side could tell. ANY audiophile can tell there are some highs and lows missing, but the average person can't and the average person doesn't care.

You also have to take into account that the better the system the better the MP3 sounds too.
 
Originally posted by LethalWolfe

Even though I hate mindless summer blockbuster films I realize that w/o them raking in the dough many quality indie flix probably wouldn't get released nationally in the US. Same thing goes for music.
Click to expand...

This only applies to independent bands that then get signed to a major label. 99.9% of which do not and the analogy falls flat, or in other words, independent labels derive no extra benefit from the products of Major Mega artists.
 
This is a very dangerous business, dealing with the big record companies! I hope Apple survives this "adventure"... :eek:


WOOHOO 100 posts! :D
 
Several Points:

I agree that .99 each is a little steap, especially when theres very little to no coast involved. I believe .70 would be resonable. just think 100 songs will coast you 100 dollars, thats would not be hard to do.

Perhaps they should have a deal, say if you purchase 50 songs they only cost you .75 instead of .99

Will there be anyway to preview the songs. I dont want to buy a song and download it to find out I dont like it.

What about modem users, perhaps the interenet connection drops, does the portion of the song you recieved automatically deleate. Or are you charged full price for a song you didnt recieve?

Once you purchase the song you should be able to use it on other computers, ipod etc.... correct?

Yes AAC will work on old iPods its already supported.

And How much of A cut will Apple recieve??? Do they get .10, .20, .30 for each song? Do they get a percentage every month? Or doe record lables get all the profit and pay apple to use the service? I think this is a very interesting question. I am sure the record labels will get the majority of the profits however.

Thanks
 
Re: Audio Quality ..

Originally posted by adzoox
I have done it, and no one, even if side by side could tell. ANY audiophile can tell there are some highs and lows missing, but the average person can't and the average person doesn't care.

You also have to take into account that the better the system the better the MP3 sounds too.
Click to expand...

front.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back