Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Billboard to Reveal Apple Music Plans?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I agree strongly on the quality issue. Now, what about albums with 6 songs?? Do I have to download individually to get them for 6 bucks instead of 10?? Weird. Hell, I own a disc with ONE track! (Bach, Goldberg Variations, Glenn Gould).
Maybe with the album download, you get the album art as well. That would be cool!
At 10 bucks retail, the record companies will probably make MORE money from this than they do from a CD sale in a retail store. win-win-win.
-Bob
Hey the last time I checked cd's were $12 at the local music store, and thats cheap. I wouldn't mind saving money and having the music on my computer legally. Apple is showing the world how to do legal file sharing right.
OK, now whos taking one for the team and paying the subscription fee?
I think you are going to be able to stream for a duration to see if you like the song.
Then you will have your choice of a few different quality of downloads. Lower quality, less money. Higher, more.
Old songs may cost less than new hits. They can have specials on certain artists for less to get you to buy. Maybe we will see different music houses getting more competitive with "their artists" and have special deals. Maybe they will tag a track from a new artist onto popular artists for free to get you to buy from the new one eventually.
I think it could also be good from the artists side. Now instead of only publishing music when there is enough for a CD, they can publish when they have one or a few new ones.
If this service is enticing, the music industry could really take advantage of it. To really be worthwhile however, it can't just be a mac thing forever. I am interested to see how this gets to the other side.
Then you will have your choice of a few different quality of downloads. Lower quality, less money. Higher, more.
Old songs may cost less than new hits. They can have specials on certain artists for less to get you to buy. Maybe we will see different music houses getting more competitive with "their artists" and have special deals. Maybe they will tag a track from a new artist onto popular artists for free to get you to buy from the new one eventually.
I think it could also be good from the artists side. Now instead of only publishing music when there is enough for a CD, they can publish when they have one or a few new ones.
If this service is enticing, the music industry could really take advantage of it. To really be worthwhile however, it can't just be a mac thing forever. I am interested to see how this gets to the other side.
Surely copy protection isn't that much of an issue?!
At the moment people can buy a CD, rip it and distribute it via peer-to-peer file sharing.
All that is being added is another way for people to buy the music. If they want to distribute it I am sure they will crack any method employed to copy protect the files.
The main point is to create another revenue stream for the music industry....hence people who want music legally but at a lower cost, and to play on their computer can buy it online.
People who want free music will continue to d/l it for free, but others will switch and pay a small amount for the music online.
At the moment people can buy a CD, rip it and distribute it via peer-to-peer file sharing.
All that is being added is another way for people to buy the music. If they want to distribute it I am sure they will crack any method employed to copy protect the files.
The main point is to create another revenue stream for the music industry....hence people who want music legally but at a lower cost, and to play on their computer can buy it online.
People who want free music will continue to d/l it for free, but others will switch and pay a small amount for the music online.
is this http://www.billboard.com/bb/daily/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1874807 the article in mention? I was able to get at it w/o a subscription (found the link on macsurfer.com)
The Billboard article says "...tracks are expected to retail for an average of 99 cents." I guess that means some tracks will cost more than others (perhaps new releases or 10+ minute tracks would cost more).
Just pointing it out, as it seems no one's mentioned it yet.
Just pointing it out, as it seems no one's mentioned it yet.
From MacMinute.....
WSJ: Apple signs exclusive artists for music service
April 25, 2003 - 14:21 EDT__ Today's Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required) has a detailed report on Apple's new digital music service, which is expected to be launched on Monday. Among the new information in the report, it says that Apple CEO Steve Jobs called Irving Azoff, the manager of the rock group the Eagles, to ask if their music could be included in the new online service. "Please, please, please clear this," Jobs reportedly said, knowing the Eagles in the past have blocked the use of their songs on such services. Jobs even offered to personally demonstrate the service for Azoff and Eagles singer Don Henley. Earlier this week, the band and AOL Time Warner indeed struck a deal, allowing most of the band's music to be used by Apple's service. "I've said 'no' to all of them," Azoff says of other music services. "But I don't like their services, and I liked [Apple's] product."
In addition to the Eagles, the Apple CEO has signed up the pop band No Doubt, and several other artists who haven't yet allowed their songs to be offered by other online ventures. The new service is expected to have an "exclusives" area for music not available elsewhere.
"According to people who have met with Mr. Jobs, the new service is integrated with Apple's iTunes software. Only Apple customers can use it, but that may change. The service requires a mouse click to buy songs and additional simple steps to move them to a CD or an iPod. Apple will charge 99 cents per song and sell albums for around $10, they say. Users will get to keep the songs permanently.
He impressed music-industry executives with his intricate knowledge of the new service, say people who have met with him. In some meetings, he sat at the computer himself to demonstrate. With his trademark confidence, he has asserted Apple will transform the online-music business, claiming that consumers will pay to download millions of songs in just a few months. And he has promised Apple's marketing machine will swing into action behind the music initiative, with an ad blitz similar to Apple's 'Think Different' and 'Switch' campaigns."
WSJ: Apple signs exclusive artists for music service
April 25, 2003 - 14:21 EDT__ Today's Wall Street Journal (paid subscription required) has a detailed report on Apple's new digital music service, which is expected to be launched on Monday. Among the new information in the report, it says that Apple CEO Steve Jobs called Irving Azoff, the manager of the rock group the Eagles, to ask if their music could be included in the new online service. "Please, please, please clear this," Jobs reportedly said, knowing the Eagles in the past have blocked the use of their songs on such services. Jobs even offered to personally demonstrate the service for Azoff and Eagles singer Don Henley. Earlier this week, the band and AOL Time Warner indeed struck a deal, allowing most of the band's music to be used by Apple's service. "I've said 'no' to all of them," Azoff says of other music services. "But I don't like their services, and I liked [Apple's] product."
In addition to the Eagles, the Apple CEO has signed up the pop band No Doubt, and several other artists who haven't yet allowed their songs to be offered by other online ventures. The new service is expected to have an "exclusives" area for music not available elsewhere.
"According to people who have met with Mr. Jobs, the new service is integrated with Apple's iTunes software. Only Apple customers can use it, but that may change. The service requires a mouse click to buy songs and additional simple steps to move them to a CD or an iPod. Apple will charge 99 cents per song and sell albums for around $10, they say. Users will get to keep the songs permanently.
He impressed music-industry executives with his intricate knowledge of the new service, say people who have met with him. In some meetings, he sat at the computer himself to demonstrate. With his trademark confidence, he has asserted Apple will transform the online-music business, claiming that consumers will pay to download millions of songs in just a few months. And he has promised Apple's marketing machine will swing into action behind the music initiative, with an ad blitz similar to Apple's 'Think Different' and 'Switch' campaigns."
Re: Re: Crap
I am sure it won't be difficult to unlock these files. Burn it to a CD and then rip it back to MP3's. But even if that is allowed it certainly won't make it easier to copy music. It would be a pain because you would have to use an audio CD. And the quality would be less than an MP3 ripped from a store bought CD. So even though it would be unlockable it won't be worth the time for people who want to steal - there are already easier ways.
It sounds like it will be a good service for people who actually want to be legit.
I am sure it won't be difficult to unlock these files. Burn it to a CD and then rip it back to MP3's. But even if that is allowed it certainly won't make it easier to copy music. It would be a pain because you would have to use an audio CD. And the quality would be less than an MP3 ripped from a store bought CD. So even though it would be unlockable it won't be worth the time for people who want to steal - there are already easier ways.
It sounds like it will be a good service for people who actually want to be legit.
Journal article
I read the Journal article this morning and the big thing for me was the "three Macs and unlimited iPods". Right now I buy the CD (don't have ANY Naptster-type songs) and scan it in and then can listen to it on my iPod, on one of the Macs etc. Then I can put it on the iPod or a CD or whatever. So here are my questions.
1. What is to prevent you from burning your song to a CD and then importing it again with iTunes. How will iTunes know whether it is one you bought online? Once it is on the CD, it seems unlikely that iTunes would know it.
2. Why not just Audio Hijack it?
I don't have a problem with paying for the songs - I have around 6598 on my computer now all paid for - but I don't want to have to screw around with registering/unregistering in 5 years (or sooner) when I go to a different computer or whatever. I guess my point is, if I have paid for the music, make sure it is REALLY easy for me move it to a new machine etc.
3. What happens if you get a reverse-switcher? Just wondering if this isn't a good method to keep switching costs high...unless they announce a PC version of course.
I read the Journal article this morning and the big thing for me was the "three Macs and unlimited iPods". Right now I buy the CD (don't have ANY Naptster-type songs) and scan it in and then can listen to it on my iPod, on one of the Macs etc. Then I can put it on the iPod or a CD or whatever. So here are my questions.
1. What is to prevent you from burning your song to a CD and then importing it again with iTunes. How will iTunes know whether it is one you bought online? Once it is on the CD, it seems unlikely that iTunes would know it.
2. Why not just Audio Hijack it?
I don't have a problem with paying for the songs - I have around 6598 on my computer now all paid for - but I don't want to have to screw around with registering/unregistering in 5 years (or sooner) when I go to a different computer or whatever. I guess my point is, if I have paid for the music, make sure it is REALLY easy for me move it to a new machine etc.
3. What happens if you get a reverse-switcher? Just wondering if this isn't a good method to keep switching costs high...unless they announce a PC version of course.
After burning it to a CD, couldn't I rip it as an MP3 to any number of computers I wanted?
EDIT: Couldn't I see other have asked this question?
EDIT: Couldn't I see other have asked this question?
Billboard Article
I subscribe to billboard and just read the premium article. There is no more information, just analysis about whether or not it will work from industry experts. They were basically saying that the industry was excited because Apple is going to put lots of marketing money behind the service, which will be a wakeup call to people to let them understand there is a legal alternative to Kazaa.
But NO NEW DETAILS IN THE BILLBOARD article.
Arn, if you want to see it, let me know...we'll work something out.
Jake
I subscribe to billboard and just read the premium article. There is no more information, just analysis about whether or not it will work from industry experts. They were basically saying that the industry was excited because Apple is going to put lots of marketing money behind the service, which will be a wakeup call to people to let them understand there is a legal alternative to Kazaa.
But NO NEW DETAILS IN THE BILLBOARD article.
Arn, if you want to see it, let me know...we'll work something out.
Jake
Re: Digital Rights
Unless you are asking how to buy a song and GIVE it to a friend (meaning, that copy is not on your machine any more), then that's a good question but if you want to duplicate and distribute it (like most people do/did on Kazaa, GNUTella and the late Napster) you are asking how to break the law. Of course Apple isn't going to help you do that; and no music label or artist is going to sign on to such a system.
You can't legaly send copyrighted material to anyone (unless you get permission from the copyright holder) - THAT'S THE POINT!
Unless you are asking how to buy a song and GIVE it to a friend (meaning, that copy is not on your machine any more), then that's a good question but if you want to duplicate and distribute it (like most people do/did on Kazaa, GNUTella and the late Napster) you are asking how to break the law. Of course Apple isn't going to help you do that; and no music label or artist is going to sign on to such a system.
Farce!
1. If this pricing is true then the music service is a joke - seriously, 10 bucks for a music download, when you could get the real CD from Amazon for almost the same and have all the quality and cover art?! Not to mention no DRM!
2. Only a few people are in the situation where they only want one or two tracks from an album; most of us buy the entire CD because we like the artist enough to want to hear all the tracks. Even if some tracks are weak, how are you to know this unless you've listened to the CD for a while? For anyone living outside of the mainstream hits "music" world, this service will be a rip-off. Apple should operate a monthly subscription like Emusic's.
1. If this pricing is true then the music service is a joke - seriously, 10 bucks for a music download, when you could get the real CD from Amazon for almost the same and have all the quality and cover art?! Not to mention no DRM!
2. Only a few people are in the situation where they only want one or two tracks from an album; most of us buy the entire CD because we like the artist enough to want to hear all the tracks. Even if some tracks are weak, how are you to know this unless you've listened to the CD for a while? For anyone living outside of the mainstream hits "music" world, this service will be a rip-off. Apple should operate a monthly subscription like Emusic's.
Death of mp3?
Everyone assumes that mp3 will still be available.
What if the new version of iTunes has DRM enabled, it may be that any music you rip using iTunes 4 is protected this way. Maybe mp3 encoding will be disabled. Maybe iTunes 4 will restrict you to AAC encoding only. Maybe this restriction is what swung the record companies into Apple's favour. It doesn't affect Apple at all - you can still Rip, Mix, Burn but this time with DRM enabled AAC (mp4).
Possible. mp3 has no advantages over mp4 (AAC) at all..... apart from lack of DRM!
Everyone assumes that mp3 will still be available.
What if the new version of iTunes has DRM enabled, it may be that any music you rip using iTunes 4 is protected this way. Maybe mp3 encoding will be disabled. Maybe iTunes 4 will restrict you to AAC encoding only. Maybe this restriction is what swung the record companies into Apple's favour. It doesn't affect Apple at all - you can still Rip, Mix, Burn but this time with DRM enabled AAC (mp4).
Possible. mp3 has no advantages over mp4 (AAC) at all..... apart from lack of DRM!
Re: Farce!
Every person is different - just because you buy entire albums doesn't mean everyone will.
If you want the whole CD - go buy it! What is the big hairy deal here?
I disagree - one of the MAJOR reasons people are quoted for having used Napster and the like are that they were sick of paying for 9 tracks that they didn't like just to listen to the 2 they did.
Every person is different - just because you buy entire albums doesn't mean everyone will.
If you want the whole CD - go buy it! What is the big hairy deal here?
I think the three mac thing has issues, like what happens if you have more than three macs at home or one gets old and you upgrade. I think the best idea would be no restrictions on the AAC file but it encodes your customer ID into the track. This would let you play it on any number of macs, take it to a friends house, bur it to cd etc. But if you put it on something like napster and it gets onto the web then you can be traced by the id on the distrobuted track and thus can be charged for breaking the law. If this happens then people wouldn't want to distrobute it freely and maybe only give it to trusted friends if they are sure they will keep it safe....sure givbing it to any friend is also illigal but I'm sure record companies wouldn't be so worried about limited distrobution between friends as you've been easily able to do that ever since well recordings came out...it's just with the internet and cd burners has it been a problem cause its not just a few friends but the whole world near enough. i think this key on your track would be a much better idea for people that want to play by the rules and can still catch people that don't but in a fair way not to effect others. The only real issue with this is what happens if someone hacks you and steals your files...but you should rerally try to keep your computer as secure as possible anyway.