Billboard to Reveal Apple Music Plans?

[gwangung]

The one SURE thing about this...

...is that there no matter WHAT is announced on Monday, there's gonna be some people who are gonna get so pissed off that they'll flood the boards with so much wailing and moaning that everyone's gonna think that Apple is dead in the water.

Of course, the same thing happened after the introduction of the original iMac...and the introduction of the cube. So let's see how it plays out in the market....

 

[eric_n_dfw]

MPEG-4 DRM

I beleive that the "DRM" that you all are wondering about is already implemented in the current MPEG-4 codec in QuickTime. Check out the MPEG-4 Export setting's in QT 6 Pro or via any QT Application (this from Final Cut Pro - Export to Quicktime:MPEG-4)

 

[pmcaleer]

$10 at Amazon? Not necessarily...

...To be honest, I'm not sure where people are getting this, "Buy it at Amazon for $10!" argument from. I did a quick glance of a few of my favorite artists, and prices ranged from $9.99 (okay) to $17.99 - and mind you that's without shipping or sales tax. Yes, shipping is free at the $25 mark, but maybe I don't want $25 worth of music right now.

If I can get the same thing instantly for $10, and have it on my iPod and Cube, that's really all I need. And I think Apple is wagering that's what a large number of other people want too. (Except for the Cube.

 

[Macpoops]

No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them.

 

[Tom800]

Re: other posts

---------
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!

--------
If that's the case then I'll stay with iTunes 3! (How do you do these quote of other posts things?)


---------
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?

---------
People used Napster for a whole load of different reasons, ranging from marvelling at the novelty of it to attempts to get whole albums off it. As anyone knows, the latter was like pulling teeth, so a couple of songs was usually the maximum you could get, intended or otherwise. What bugs me is that Apple service could be *killer* if it were based on subscription; as it looks at the moment, it'll be a Napster for those with a conscience (or wallet!).

 

[eric_n_dfw]

Originally posted by Macpoops
No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them.

Exactly!
I like a lot of the generic crap, I also like good stuff too. I'll go buy the good stuff at the store to have the CD, Liner notes, etc. The rest I'd like to download, legaly.

 

[JLL]

Re: Farce!

Originally posted by Tom800
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!

Um, more and more CDs have DRM these days.

 

[bitfactory]

Originally posted by Macpoops
No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them.

i completely disagree... if ALL of the labels sign on, AND they allow DEEP catalog browsing (including UK and Europe sub-labels) i'm going to go broke buying all the stuff i order from the UK/Sweden/Australia etc...

and i hate 99.999% of the swill played on the radio.

this could finally be the vehicle to FIND and DOWNLOAD 'obscure' artists that you just can't find in stores and have to order overseas anyway.

 

[littlejim]

Re: Re: Farce!

Originally posted by eric_n_dfw
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?

A good point.

The more I think about the service, the more I think it might be good.

Nine times out of ten, I want all the tracks and I'll buy the whole CD, but there are occasions when I just want the highlights. There's still a lot of my old vinyl that I havn't replaced because 75% of the tracks were trash.

 

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by Macpoops
No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them.

Absolutely. From the perspective of an executive, this service is to make money-not further develop accessability to "unmainstream" music (even though the two are not exactly mutually exclusive).

And as a side note, I think it is funny how so many people who consider themselves out of the mainstream criticize mainstream music. In my opinion, it is very elitist of people to talk down to people who like mainstream music.

Just let people listen to whatever they like.

 

[drastik]

Originally posted by Macpoops
No offense but this is not targeted at those outside of the mainstream music. Personally i dislike 95% of what gets airplay. This service is designed for me but i still would like to see it. This is designed for the people that listen to the radio and watch MTV and actually like the manufactured generic crap that is peddled by the major record companies. Given there are many people who don't listen to it, but the record companies don't make their money from them.

great point, I don't listen to any of the crap on the radio either. The interesting thing is, people like you and I are more likely to pay for music because we want to support the artists.

 

[peterjhill]

About making an audio cd then ripping it as an mp3...

I can make an audio cd from my audible files that will play on any cd player that plays cd-r's (mp3 not necessary), but I am not able to rip the audio into an mp3. Nor am I able to make a disk image of an audible audio cd with disk copy. There may be workarounds but I have not found them and they would probably violate the dreaded dcma, so the labels would go after people who tried to post software that would let people steal the music.

 

[GeeYouEye]

Re: Re: other posts

Originally posted by Tom800
---------
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!

--------
If that's the case then I'll stay with iTunes 3! (How do you do these quote of other posts things?)


---------
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?

---------
People used Napster for a whole load of different reasons, ranging from marvelling at the novelty of it to attempts to get whole albums off it. As anyone knows, the latter was like pulling teeth, so a couple of songs was usually the maximum you could get, intended or otherwise. What bugs me is that Apple service could be *killer* if it were based on subscription; as it looks at the moment, it'll be a Napster for those with a conscience (or wallet!).

1. By clicking the quote button below a post or by typing (without the spaces) [ q u o t e ] and [ / q u o t e ]

2. There's always Audion.

3. The key will be the wallet. I know a bunch of people who do download exclusively because they don't have enough money for albums, or a credit card to purchase them individually via the existing services. Apple certainly can't help there.

 

[bitfactory]

Originally posted by Freg3000
Absolutely. From the perspective of an executive, this service is to make money-not further develop accessability to "unmainstream" music (even though the two are not exactly mutually exclusive).

nope. its for BOTH. for rec. companies reluctant to promote + distribute albums by lesser-known artists, all they have to do is provide access to the files.

if the service allows you to 'preview' a stream of the music, this will benefit BOTH sides of the fence.

after-all, money is money - whether its coming from the sales of U2 or, let's say, Augie March.

 

[jettredmont]

Re: Boo!

Originally posted by Playfrsbee
I really would be dissapointed if this turned out to be true. $10 an album would be more then a label would make (after distribution and retail costs) on a real cd!

Umm, it's also more than the label will make under Apple's scheme ... Did you expect Apple to do this gratis, solely for the benefit of the labels?

Apple will take a cut of the profits (obviously). $10/album is a good deal for the consumer (who pays $15-18+ on average now and has no way of just buying part of an album). It is a good deal for the labels if they're signing on (which means they're either getting a better cut per album before or they've actually grown a few brain cells and see that offering the consumer more choice means higher quantity of sales and hence they don't need to make as large a cut off digital distribution as they do off physical distribution). And, as Apple is hosting this, one would hope that they're acting in their own best interest as well.

Personally, I'd love to start buying my music without the waste of CDs, but I don't want to lose the art of the album (meaning, the whole "package" of contents - liner notes, pics, lyrics, etc - that comes with the CD) either. I'm a bit on the fence as far as using this right now.

But, price-wise, $10/album is awesome for me.

 

[Perceptes]

*drools* If this catches on (and spreads to PC's) this is going to revolutionize the music industry.

 

[indar20]

Re: Farce!

Originally posted by Tom800
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.

first off, 10 bucks for an album is an outstanding price. at amazon you're gonna pay AT LEAST 14 or 15 bucks, + shipping. at record stores cds are usually at least 15 or 16 bucks + tax.

second, if cover art, linear notes, and sound quality are so important to everyone, then why is the iPod selling so damn well?? I could care less about cover art as long as I have the music . . . I think the mp3 explosion over the last several years shows that most people agree.

if this news about the service is true, i predict an enourmous success. artists and record companies will jump on board for higher margins, and consumers will jump on board for lower prices. SCREW CDS--gimme the damn music!

 

[zulgand04]

I see alot of argueing on is this service worth it or not. Have we seen or heard all the details yet, no. Why is everyone getting all worked up over something we know almost nothing about, all we have is speculation and some small congrete info. When monday comes and we get to see the service for ourselves then go complain, but for now relax. Things will work out, for both us and the record companies, Apple would't put this much into something that from the start is going to fail, if it does it does but intill it does. "just be cool" west side story

-Neal

ps. the avg price for a cd is almost 15$ and i only listen to like 6 songs tops, rarely have i like an entire cd.

 

[Snowy_River]

Originally posted by peterjhill
About making an audio cd then ripping it as an mp3...

I can make an audio cd from my audible files that will play on any cd player that plays cd-r's (mp3 not necessary), but I am not able to rip the audio into an mp3. Nor am I able to make a disk image of an audible audio cd with disk copy. There may be workarounds but I have not found them and they would probably violate the dreaded dcma, so the labels would go after people who tried to post software that would let people steal the music.

I'm not sure what's wrong with the CDs that you make, but I most assuredly can rip disks that I burned. I've used this as a means of backing up audio that I've recorded from other sources. (i.e. make a recording of an old LP, tape, or what-have-you, clean it up, burn it to a CD. Computer crashes. Take burned CD and rip the songs back onto the computer.)

Perhaps it has something to do with the original CDs having DRM that others have mentioned? (I'm not familiar with that, so I can't comment on it...)

 

[Freg3000]

Originally posted by bitfactory
nope. its for BOTH. for rec. companies reluctant to promote + distribute albums by lesser-known artists, all they have to do is provide access to the files.

if the service allows you to 'preview' a stream of the music, this will benefit BOTH sides of the fence.

after-all, money is money - whether its coming from the sales of U2 or, let's say, Augie March.

Ok, point taken. But how much more money will be made from U2 than from Augie March? Maybe the idea is to look for a possibile new star who will generate a lot of money in say....2005. But seriously, would a record company rather get some money now in a bad economy, or would they prefer to open up pretty much unknown artists today for potential benifits tomorrow? I thin they'd take the money now, and that's why I think the service will be very mainstream.

JMHO.

 

[JLL]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm not sure what's wrong with the CDs that you make, but I most assuredly can rip disks that I burned. I've used this as a means of backing up audio that I've recorded from other sources. (i.e. make a recording of an old LP, tape, or what-have-you, clean it up, burn it to a CD. Computer crashes. Take burned CD and rip the songs back onto the computer.)

Perhaps it has something to do with the original CDs having DRM that others have mentioned? (I'm not familiar with that, so I can't comment on it...)

He's talking about burning CDs with Audible content that uses a DRM tech that might be used in Apple's music service.

 

[eric_n_dfw]

FWIW, This service may make me finaly break down and buy an iPod. So, if the rumors hold true, it's working for Apple as iPod sales will go up. (well, at least by 1! )

 

[NavyIntel007]

It'll be interesting to see what the quality of these songs are going to be. If it's not at least 128, I won't even look at it. I'd like 160-192 but one can only dream. I really don't know what the AAC sounds like compared to a MP3 but a good quality should be expected. I mean this could also be a ploy to get people to download a song at $.99 and have them find out that the quality is so bad they have to go get the CD. I hope not, but does anyone trust the music industry?

 

[bitfactory]

Originally posted by NavyIntel007
It'll be interesting to see what the quality of these songs are going to be. If it's not at least 128, I won't even look at it. I'd like 160-192 but one can only dream. I really don't know what the AAC sounds like compared to a MP3 but a good quality should be expected. I mean this could also be a ploy to get people to download a song at $.99 and have them find out that the quality is so bad they have to go get the CD. I hope not, but does anyone trust the music industry?

AAC sound MUCH better at lower bit-rates, so a 128 AAC will be SUPERIOR to 128 mp3... as a matter of fact, every article i've read states that even 'experts' have a hard time discerning between low-bit rate AACs and original CD track quality.

this is a good thing (c) as it enables faster downloads from smaller file sizes.

there's a downside, though - i'll have to re-rip all of my CDs (took me a whole weekend) if i want to consolidate my collection to make room for all the new music (to fit on my 10GB iPod).

btw, i've enjoyed my first few discussions here at the Macrumors discussion board!

 

[peterjhill]

Originally posted by Snowy_River
I'm not sure what's wrong with the CDs that you make, but I most assuredly can rip disks that I burned. I've used this as a means of backing up audio that I've recorded from other sources. (i.e. make a recording of an old LP, tape, or what-have-you, clean it up, burn it to a CD. Computer crashes. Take burned CD and rip the songs back onto the computer.)
)

I was commenting on Apple's protection of audible.com content. Make an audio disk of audible content, then try to rip it. You will not be able to do it. At least not easily. I am sure there is some darwin layer tool that could probably do it.