Apple's Music Service... This Month?

[jch200]

hey, does anybody know about the issue of Apple not being allowed to make money off the recording industry? The whole Apple Beatles recording law suit when Apple computers got started. Apple computer got sued for using the name Apple, and they Apple Records (the Beatles label) made them agree that as long as they never make money off the recording industry then they could use the name.

yeah, I know, I'm a little foggy on the story, but does anyone know anything about it? This could be the answer to some of the posts here about whether Apple would make money on this service. Maybe they're not going to. They might just be satisfied with dominating the software and ipod hardware niche.

 

[centauratlas]

iPods at the same time?

>Other updates expected are iTunes and iPod updates.<

Are they expected at the same time (e.g. just under 4 weeks from now)? Seems like a long time for the iPod updates given the 5GB is completely unavailable.

I need the 40GB...out of space...(or if they get around to incorporating the 60GB drive in it eventually...)

 

[iconrad]

Originally posted by jettredmont
It's all about the bitrate. If your MP3's don't sound "right" to you, then rip them at a higher bitrate.

AAC has two benefits:

1) at the same bitrate (and, thus, nearly-identical file size), it will yeild higher quality than MP3; the other way of saying this is that the same quality of sound may be had at a significantly lower bitrate, and thus smaller file.

2) the overall fidelity is more even across the spectrum than with MP3. Thus, where MP3 largely filters out the highs and deep bass, AAC reproduces them. Thus, even at two bitrates where AAC and MP3 have the "same" general quality, you will have better range coming out of the AAC file.

Personally, I can stand MP3s in most cases at 160kbps, am 99% fooled at 192kbps, and on the rare case where 192 isn't enough, 256kbps is indistinguishable to CD audio to me. But, every ear is different.

You may (likely will) get a bunch of people telling you that with better stereo equipment lower-bitrate MP3s sound just as good as CDs ... which is of course wrong. Unless your stereo equipment is smoothing over your audio (which to me would be the sign of low-quality equipment, not high-quality equipment), the more fidelity your equipment has the more accurately it will produce the artifacts left from MP3 encoding.

Thank You. This information is very helpful, and now I cant wait for the new apple service to come. The highs and base are what I really miss in MP3. I usually don't rip my CD's at
bit-rates above 160kbps because of the size of the file, rather limited on my disc space.

As for the law suite, I think apple would have been sued already if it is going to happen. Apple has already won a Technical Grammy for its "...contributions to the music industry and recording field." So it would seem to me that they are already involved in the recording industry and still using the Apple name.

 

[j33pd0g]

Originally posted by sanford
So long as it's pay-per-song and not subscription PLUS pay-per-song.

Oh that would bite!

 

[m3djack]

AAC has DRM

I think the reason the article references 'ripping' to mp3 is that AAC supports some form of Digital Rights Management, does it not? Wouldn't an AAC file be able to flag itself as not being burnable to some extent?

I believe the author of the report may have been suggesting this. I admittedly do not know the technical details about it either, but think about it. The big five aren't going to back a service that is DRM free. They will want to control how you distribute the music. I bet the source was a bit confused about it.

 

[j33pd0g]

Originally posted by j33pd0g
Oh that would bite!

Unless of course you can just add the new service over to your .Mac account.

Speaking of subcriptions: Renewal is due soon... I wonder if there will be a lower rate for those of us who have already subscribed?

 

[jch200]

As for the law suite, I think apple would have been sued already if it is going to happen. Apple has already won a Technical Grammy for its "...contributions to the music industry and recording field." So it would seem to me that they are already involved in the recording industry and still using the Apple name.

no, I'm talking about the actual sales of song recordings. That's what they don't (or didn't) have the right to do.

 

[IndyGopher]

Backing up hard drives

<rant>Every time this subject comes up, people want to know what happens if they have a hard drive crash... well, what SHOULD happen? You should restore from your current backup. Be it tape, an external hard drive, whatever... and if you don't HAVE a backup? Just whose fault is THAT? Why should they have to babysit you and let you download it again? Take some responsibility and back up your own data. At least 3 or 4 times a week I have someone come running into the shop frantic about either a machine or its data. My personal favorites are the ones that start with "This is the [n]th time this has happened!" Doesn't anyone make backups anymore?? </rant>

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Re: Re: Re: Apple's Music Service... This Month?

Originally posted by arn
As for converting to MP3's to allow it to be burned to a CD. This also makes no sense. an MP4->MP3 conversion would cause a fidelity loss. CD's are in a raw audio format... if iTunes can play MP4 AAC to the speaker, then it can burn that information to CD.

Yes...however, there is a seperate MP3 CD format, that uses the MP3 format, and burns them onto CDs. The advatantage of MP3-CD is that there are CD players that recognize the MP3-CD format, thus making it entirely plausible that you could convert an MP4 to MP3 to burn onto a MP3 CD.

 

[iconrad]

Originally posted by jch200
no, I'm talking about the actual sales of song recordings. That's what they don't (or didn't) have the right to do.

Sorry, I guess I didn't understand what you meant.

Dose any one know wether or not Sony Music signed on yet, as well what are the 5 major record labels who have signed on. If we knew this then I think it would be easier to know what kind of music will be available.

 

[jimjiminyjim]

Re: It depends what you're looking for...

Originally posted by bryanc
...for those of use with more esoteric tastes, LimeWire and other P2P file sharing systems are not satisfactory.

I hope Apple recognizes this, and provides as large an array of classical, jazz and alternative music as possible....

My sentiments exactly.

 

[Phil Of Mac]

Originally posted by jch200
hey, does anybody know about the issue of Apple not being allowed to make money off the recording industry? The whole Apple Beatles recording law suit when Apple computers got started. Apple computer got sued for using the name Apple, and they Apple Records (the Beatles label) made them agree that as long as they never make money off the recording industry then they could use the name.

yeah, I know, I'm a little foggy on the story, but does anyone know anything about it? This could be the answer to some of the posts here about whether Apple would make money on this service. Maybe they're not going to. They might just be satisfied with dominating the software and ipod hardware niche.

OK, here's the story:

1. Apple Computer is founded.
2. Apple Records: "Hey! You can't be Apple! We're Apple!"
3. Apple Computer: "Ptaugh!"
4. Apple Records: "As long as you stay out of the recording business."

Part II:

1. Apple Computer releases a microphone for the Macintosh SE (IIRC).
2. Apple Records: "Hey! That's recording!"
3. Apple Computer: "Ptaugh!"

And that's the story so far.

 

[locovaca]

Re: Backing up hard drives

Originally posted by IndyGopher
<rant>Every time this subject comes up, people want to know what happens if they have a hard drive crash... well, what SHOULD happen? You should restore from your current backup. Be it tape, an external hard drive, whatever... and if you don't HAVE a backup? Just whose fault is THAT? Why should they have to babysit you and let you download it again? Take some responsibility and back up your own data. At least 3 or 4 times a week I have someone come running into the shop frantic about either a machine or its data. My personal favorites are the ones that start with "This is the [n]th time this has happened!" Doesn't anyone make backups anymore?? </rant>

If this is the stance that they take, they won't get many people, especially if you can't make physical back ups (burns), then you are SOL. With cd's you have a physical backup, and in the event that something catastrophic does happen you can always re-rip.

 

[nuckinfutz]

5 Majors

That'll pretty much guarantee the most of the music available will be the same ole Dreck being pushed by the Majors. The success of this service will hinge on the amount of Independents Apple can sign up. P2P is often used to find new artists that you would not normally know about since Clear Channel loves to push only the Dreck from the Majors.

 

[BillyShears]

Originally posted by gopher
One click needs to be improved. I don't want to put my credit card number online anywhere. As it is, I have to in order to do any one-click purchasing. Even when I qualified for free one-click photos with my .Mac membership. Due to its insecurity I never was able to take advantage of it.

Since it is an app run on OS X, it most likely makes use of the keychain, thus sending the data over the net encrypted, but Apple never has your credit card number, it is stored on your computer.

Just a guess, though, I could be wrong. It may be easier for Apple to keep track of good/bad credit card numbers if they have them on their servers...

 

[requies]

Originally posted by greenstork
Legality issues aside. I don't know anyone who has had a problem finding the songs that they want over a peer-to-peer network like Acquisition or Limewire. I'm not sure I understand the posts about these programs not being sufficient.

If all the gripes are about crappy ID3 tags, I just don't follow. As for sound quality, programs like Acquisition allow you to sort the selections by bitrate (ensuring high quality). If you get a bad song, there are usually 35 other copies you can try.

AAC would be the only reason I could see for justifying any expense for a song otherwise I think the majority people will overlook the ethical dilemma of downloading free music.

Just my two cents.

hi! my name is ken. now you know somebody who can't find what they want on current p2p networks. come on, man. you live in seattle. support some indie music. a lot of the music i like isn't even particularly obscure and it is very hard if not impossible to find on those networks. and if there aren't 35 copies to choose from then if you do find one chances are it's crappy.

whatever. i think it's a good idea and i think the numbers will show it. we'll see!

 

[IndyGopher]

Re: Re: Backing up hard drives

Originally posted by locovaca
If this is the stance that they take, they won't get many people, especially if you can't make physical back ups (burns), then you are SOL. With cd's you have a physical backup, and in the event that something catastrophic does happen you can always re-rip.

It's data on your computer. What would stop you from making a backup of it? I agree that being able to make MP3 or audio CD's would be the ideal solution, but I can't imagine the situation in which you would be unable to make a normal backup of your drive.

 

[Mr T]

I don't want itunes with a built in music subscription service as I don't need this so called fature. I guess it's a better alternative than having it incorperated into the OS which would totally suck. When was the last time Apple put out a product for a reasonable price?


There is no way they will have reasonable prices for music downloads and have liberal fair use standards. I wish Apple would get out of the internet and music business and just stick to making hardware and software. Hopefully, most people will not renew their Mac subscriptions and Apple will get the message. People want value for their money and subscription services are not consumer freindly

 

[locovaca]

Re: Re: Re: Backing up hard drives

Originally posted by IndyGopher
It's data on your computer. What would stop you from making a backup of it? I agree that being able to make MP3 or audio CD's would be the ideal solution, but I can't imagine the situation in which you would be unable to make a normal backup of your drive.

Just because you physically have the songs doesn't mean that you can just play them back. Nobody knows how Apple is going to work to avoid piracy with a system like this. There could be all sorts of certificates, keys, etc. that are hidden around OS X and that could be lost in the event of a failure. While Apple isn't Microsoft, but I can't see how they'd be able to do this without some sort of similar protection found in WMA (where if it's not played on the computer that ripped it and if you don't "backup" your licenses then you can't play it). Because while

Apple != Microsoft,

RIAA's idea of distributing music != Apple's idea of distributing music

Nobody knows what kind of contract Apple would have to get into to provide a service like this, provided they are providing big names with this service (and for it to succeed, I suspect they would need to). Voluntarily cooperating with the RIAA has proven to be disatrous for users (WMA, Palladium, DMCA, etc.), and I can't see them cutting Apple any slack, especially with Apple's consumer orientated stance the past few years with regards to digital media.

My fear is that Apple will have to practically sell it's soul to provide a service like this. Everyone wants this to be a lightening fast, high quality Gnutella, myself including. At some point you have to realize that some forces in this country will never allow that to occur with their knowledge, especially to someone as big as Apple.

 

[paulc]

My issue is that at a buck a song, that's just about the same cost as a song on a CD. If they think I'm now going to pay a buck for something that is decidedly NOT the quality of a CD, they need to think harder.

Far as I'm concerned, I'd only pay for a full fidelity AFF. And be able to rip it into whatever format my portable player/computer likes to use. And be able to re-rip it into a "better" compressed format; as you know, these DO come along every now and then.

That being said, I'd be willing to bet you that this "service" is going to be all about Britney, XXXtina, the Backhoe Boyz, essentially all the "big" sellers. I would doubt they'd have a classical section or a jazz section. This is going to be mainstream stuff.

 

[requies]

Originally posted by paulc
My issue is that at a buck a song, that's just about the same cost as a song on a CD. If they think I'm now going to pay a buck for something that is decidedly NOT the quality of a CD, they need to think harder.

Far as I'm concerned, I'd only pay for a full fidelity AFF. And be able to rip it into whatever format my portable player/computer likes to use. And be able to re-rip it into a "better" compressed format; as you know, these DO come along every now and then.

That being said, I'd be willing to bet you that this "service" is going to be all about Britney, XXXtina, the Backhoe Boyz, essentially all the "big" sellers. I would doubt they'd have a classical section or a jazz section. This is going to be mainstream stuff.

it's gotta at least have joni mitchell. steve wouldn't approve it otherwise.

 

[Awimoway]

Originally posted by Phil Of Mac
OK, here's the story:

1. Apple Computer is founded.
2. Apple Records: "Hey! You can't be Apple! We're Apple!"
3. Apple Computer: "Ptaugh!"
4. Apple Records: "As long as you stay out of the recording business."

Part II:

1. Apple Computer releases a microphone for the Macintosh SE (IIRC).
2. Apple Records: "Hey! That's recording!"
3. Apple Computer: "Ptaugh!"

And that's the story so far.

ptaugh

PRONUNCIATION: ta'

DEFINITION: Persuant to Federal Syllabication Commission advisory 17J0445-9/B "ptaugh" and its inflected forms "ptaughed", "ptaughing", and "ptaughs" are classified top secret interjections to be used with utmost care and only be federally authorized agencies. Its public definition is hereby revoked 17 Nov 2002.

ETYMOLOGY: Believed to be of obscure Macedonian origin, Alexander the Great used the expression before decimating countries for their boys and olive oil.

 

[nagromme]

Buying as AAC makes sense. Best quality per file size, and offers different compression levels like MP3 does.

Converting that AAC to MP3 also makes sense--IF you have an MP3 player that can't handle AAC. I suspect the iPod will handle AAC in future, but many other brands won't. iTunes isn't just meant for iPod owners.

Likewise, converting the AAC to a music CD makes sense too--iTunes is meant for people who still use CDs as well!

There's certainly reason to question the report until it coms true, but that last AC->MP3 statement doesn't seem like it adds any additional doubt.

 

[nichrome]

I agree with the previous post. arn, with all due respect, it doesn't sound like you thought the thing through before labeling AInsider's claim as suspect.

Firstly, converting AAC to MP3 is not at all odd, since most CD players that support MP3 CDs do not support AAC CDs; and none of the current portable MP3 players support AAC.

Secondly, AAC->MP3 does not lower the quality, it just makes the file bigger (since the MP3's bitrate is higher).

 

[Vroem]

About DRM

Someone, explain to me what the benefit of DRM is. The way I see it: if you can play it on your computer, then you can rip off the DRM. Why would apple ever use such a stupid tecnology? Especially when it makes things more complicated?