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??

Another .mac bonus

Ok, so the service will only be available to people with a .mac account. Maybe Apple will offer a deal where you get your first 10 songs free when you sign up for a .mac account. I've heard there is a service were you pay $10.00 a month with unlimited downloads (on the Windows side?). I don't see that working on the Apple side, but I do see Apple leveraging .mac for this.
 
Originally posted by backspinner
sorry to say, but in Europe we have to pay tax so a cd costs $20+
Click to expand...

Yeah in Denmark the price for a new cd is ~20€ (~22$).
Way too expensive I think. Some time after the release you can get them for half the price though.

BTW: The number of cds sold in Denmark have been halfed in the last 2 years. Guess why....
 
Apple vs. P2P

iTunes Music Service (speculation):
1. Fast, dedicated, reliable servers
2. AAC (mp3 sucks for high fidelity)
3. No legal issues to worry about, even on corporate or university equipment and networks.
4. Minimal DRM (Tied to a particular user, not a machine. Possibly a .Mac account)
5. $1 per song + network cost
6. The knowledge that you are not a thief, even if it means supporting RIAA labels.

2P2:
1. Unpredictable servers
2. Questionable quality of downloads
3. Huge legal issues. Possibility of being raided and charged for unlicensed content esp. on private equipment.
4. No DRM whatsoever
5. $0 per song + network cost (Will cost more if charged per byte or connection time)
6. The knowledge that you are a thief.
 
Originally posted by twelve
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.
Click to expand...


The example may fall flat, but the analogy remains the same. Any label, independent or not, works on the premise that they'll have enough income generating bands to off-set the loss generated by bands that are not profitable. The only examples I think of that wouldn't fit this mold are big artists (or other independtly wealthy people) that start their own (usually small) small, private labels and don't neccisarily<sp?> need or expect the bands on their label to turn a profit.

Many of the "big" independent label's aren't really independent. They are just the "independent arm" of a major label (or in some other way affiliated w/a major).


Lethal
 
I don't think this service would only be available to .mac users, but probably a worthwhile discount to them.

AAC audio is 30% the size, at the SAME quality.. no, don't go copying your mp3's to AAC, because you will only lose quality from going from one compression to another. So then you can have a same-sized AAC at better quality than mp3.. People that don't like any compression will have less to whine about.

I can see this service being available to only mac users to start off, and if successful, probably go on into the PC market, like the iPod did.

But don't make any assumptions about the service until apple officially announces it, because things change, and they do often before apple releases them.
 
Damn all I was expecting from iTunes 4 was Rendevous. So will we get both Rendeveous and this???

Just imagine, one guy purchases a song, then another guy listens to it over rendevous, and likes it so much he purchases it. Seems the record companines are getting a hell of a deal this way, Essentially Apples technology is letting people hear the song and purchase them. I think Apple should get like 50% of the profits, sounds only far.

Unfourtunatley for all this new stuff I have no problem seeing apple making iTunes a purchase, say 39, or 49.
 
Originally posted by swdrumcp
Damn all I was expecting from iTunes 4 was Rendevous. So will we get both Rendeveous and this???

Just imagine, one guy purchases a song, then another guy listens to it over rendevous, and likes it so much he purchases it. Seems the record companines are getting a hell of a deal this way, Essentially Apples technology is letting people hear the song and purchase them. I think Apple should get like 50% of the profits, sounds only far.

Unfourtunatley for all this new stuff I have no problem seeing apple making iTunes a purchase, say 39, or 49.
Click to expand...

No this has to be free, you don't pay money to go into a musicstore.
 
Originally posted by patman_Z
I guess that is ok unless an album has 22 songs!
Click to expand...

maybe there will be some kind of deal for whole albums and other things like artwork and videos.
 
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.
Click to expand...

I would gladly pay. Firstly, I don't download music because it is free and illegal to do so. I have no love for the record companies, but, being an artist myself, I don't like violating the rights of the artist. I'll download something if a band or artist permits it, but that's as far as I'll go.

Second, if Apple does this then I'd expect their offerings would be of a much higher quality than songs you can download for free. If they can protect it from being downloaded by others then even better, makes Apple's service more appealing.

I still prefer buying CDs, but if I can buy some online and burn them myself, saving some $$$ in the process and being able to print out the sleeves, then sign me up.

This service would be great for creating legal mix CDs as well. Maybe the best way to do it is discount complete albums.

Anyhow, I'd definitely sign up for a legal service that could deliver even obscure music. Hopefully Apple will be willing to distribute almost anything.

And other than music, this could allow for easy advertisement and delivery of Mac software - such as games, all from one source.

As for testing songs, what would be ideal is the ability to download a song for free and be able to listen to it for 24 hours before you buy it. If you like it, you've got to pay for it. If not, the music won't work. Apple could keep track of what you downloaded so you can't continually download the same song w/out paying. If you want it after that initial 24 hours, you've got to pay.
 
AAC is high quality

To debunk some of the rumors in this thread. AAC takes up less space, between 30-50% less than mp3 depending on the bit rate. It is also much better sound quality than mp3, often indistinguishable from CD quality. MPEG 4 (AAC) also has the capabilities of displaying customized text and graphics accopanying the song, allowing for essentially an album cover, graphics, lyrics, etc. to flow into iTunes. I would guess that the new version of iTunes, if it is using MPEG 4, will have some sort of feature that includes text, graphics, etc.

It will basically do for music and individual songs, what DVD's did for movies. Extras are digitally included in MPEG 4 at much higher quality than mp3, taking up less space on your HD.
 
I'm not sure where this would be feasible, but think about the fact that Firewire doesn't need a computer to network...

I can see someone walking up to a FW port somewhere with their iPod and plugging it in. A file on the iPod stores your identification and credit card info. On the iPod screen you are greeted with a Welcome message and menu of options: browse, search, listen, buy.

You use the iPod to find a song you want, decide to download it, and the charge is billed to your credit card automatically.

Cool, huh!
 
Originally posted by Apple][Forever
how does this affect the old Apple Records lawsuit? Is that still even an issue?
Click to expand...
My thoughts EXACTLY. In the settlement, Apple agreed not to enter the record industry. So this could make them in breech of that settlement. We shall see...
 
Cheaper iPods...

It occurs to me that this could be a force that will allow Apple to justify lower costing iPods. If they surmise that a significant portion of iPod users will become Music service subcribers, the cost of the iPod could then be subsidized to some degree by this additional flow of cash to the company.

If such is the case, it would benefit Apple greatly to put more iPods in the hands of users. Cheaper iPods would mean more iPods in the hands of potential customers for the music service. Here's hoping...
 
My predictions:
? iTunes 4 with rendez-vous and support for the Apple music service.
? New iPod with support for AAC, iTunes 4 and the Apple music service.
? New digital device (see new plastic enclosure) that connects to hifi to play music stored on a Mac and to TV to view movies/slideshows stored on a mac. It would have an Airport Extreme card, an ethernet port and be rendez-vous enabled.

Benj.
 
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?
Click to expand...

YES! Maybe I'm a completely dishonest person, but with a little bit of effort, all of this can be had for free. If I sit down for a few hours, I might download 20 songs, which would cost me $20. Or zero if I just use Acquisition.

Eminem is the most downloaded artist right now, and he still made $29 million last year. I'm just having a really hard time convincing myself I need to pay for music.
 
indies will love it

how amazing would this be for indie labels? virtual international distro without having to deal with all the hassles. find your hard markets before you send out solid goods.

i hope that labels can opt in to this service. that would be amazing. how great would it to be able to find rare obscure and maybe even high quality live songs from your favorite bands?

the major labels are going the way of the dinosaur.

bring back the art, kill the industry
 
To debunk some of the rumors in this thread. AAC takes up less space, between 30-50% less than mp3 depending on the bit rate.
Click to expand...

Actually that's impossible. AAC at 128 bits per second is the same date rate as MP3. What they're saying is an AAC@ 96bps should sound equivalent to 128-192 MP3.

They have been less than honest about this IMO. First I want to "hear" the proof. I've heard alot of woofing about AAC but no ones using it.
 
Yes you are

Originally posted by Qball
YES! Maybe I'm a completely dishonest person, but with a little bit of effort, all of this can be had for free.
Click to expand...

Because you view the likelihood that you will be caught as inconsequential, you mistakenly characterize the music as "free."

Thieves who are never caught are still stealing.

If you are ever caught, what will be your defense?

1. "Everybody is doing it." Never works.
2. "The music is just too expensive." Never works.
3. "The artists make plenty of money." Never works.

I am simply amazed by the brazenly immoral tone taken by some of the posters on this thread.

Would you go into a restaurant and steal tip money off a table?

There's no difference.
 
Originally posted by MacFan25
A monthly fee that offers unlimited songs that you could download would be great.
Click to expand...
That's what PressPlay is - $10/mo for unlimited downloads. You can also pay more if you want to burn a limited number of songs to CD or a portable device.
 
Re: Yes you are

Originally posted by QuiteSure
Because you view the likelihood that you will be caught as inconsequential, you mistakenly characterize the music as "free."

Thieves who are never caught are still stealing.

If you are ever caught, what will be your defense?

1. "Everybody is doing it." Never works.
2. "The music is just too expensive." Never works.
3. "The artists make plenty of money." Never works.

I am simply amazed by the brazenly immoral tone taken by some of the posters on this thread.

Would you go into a restaurant and steal tip money off a table?

There's no difference.
Click to expand...

All of your points are correct. I concede.

However, to borrow from one of your examples, I would say that I would never frequent a restuarant that I felt was ripping me off (too expensive, lame portions, portions that are too large, whatever). But if a friend had leftovers from the restaurant, I'd eat them!

When CD's first came out, the record companies said that costs would be high at first, just like CD players were, but that the costs would eventually fall in line with LP's and cassettes. Never happened, they lied.

And, in the past, we used double-cassette recorders with nary a stink -- you could borrow a friend's tape and make a copy. No moral "stealing" argument from the RIAA. But now that technology has greased the wheels, oh NOW we have a problem.
 
A fuss was given when the VCR and tape recorder were released...

Have you ever taped something off the radio or a CD onto a tape? That too is stealing, but only in the sense that somebody says it is. Music has existed longer than the human race, humans just channel it, and i don't think that a force like that can be stolen. Anyhow, half the stuff that is being stolen i don't even consider music, just pop-abominations (scoff...scoff....)

Legal issues on this topic will forever be debated.

But hey, I'd pay for this service, i'd like it if there was a flat fee w/unlimited DLs though....


(EDit: QBall good job! Quicker on the draw!)
 
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