iPod and WMA Functionality

[billyboy]

The two issues that online music stores are addressing are - an alternative to p2p free, and provision of a digital player to listen to digital music when you are on the go.

When you sell something, you need to have done your market research and be clear in your mind who you are targetting and why the specific market will want your product over a competing product. Apple with AAC and the iPod have got it right so far, WMA and suppliers of iPod killers have not been so successful.

For those that think AAC sucks, and for those that think the iPodmini will bomb are precisely the people Apple are not appealing to.

The sound quality argument about AAC v CD quality is really misleading. The comparison is AAC v MP3 because Apple are looking to provide a better alternative to the music freely available on p2p networks. So, hands up who reckons Apple are not improving on the quality of MP3 by going with AAC? The audiophiles who think AAC sucks are not the people Apple are interested in. Go buy a CD if you want CD quality, but if you want to have instant access to a good selection of music that sounds great on an iPod or through your computer speakers, AAC does it for you

People who dont think the iPodmini will sell are also not in the market sector that Apple are targetting. Go buy a 15GB iPod and make Appple really happy, or go buy one of the players that hardly anyone else has, and find out first hand why they are not selling that well.

30 million downloads later, 2 million iPod sales later, and 100,000 bought unseen iPodminis later suggests that Apple are on to something and the WMA brigade are getting walloped and expect Apple to help them out..

 

[applebum]

want to use the song on a 3rd party player or their TiVo, or their PDA, etc etc etc? Or heck, just for the sake of argument, what if they use Linux, Mac OS 9 or <insert any non Mac OS X or Windows OS). Their only option then is to go buy the CD at full price. And this can be expensive, because if somebody likes an artist, they don't want just one 99 cent song, they want all the good tracks on the album!


Umm yes they can. Anyone may burn their legally purchases music to CD. Once they do that, they can go play their music on any of those things you mentioned. They may have to re-rip the songs to mp3 or wma, but they can do it. Will the sound quality be as good - no. Does it take some time - yes. Look, just because a choice is too much work or has a negative, doesn't mean it is not a choice.

 

[dricci]

Umm yes they can. Anyone may burn their legally purchases music to CD. Once they do that, they can go play their music on any of those things you mentioned. They may have to re-rip the songs to mp3 or wma, but they can do it. Will the sound quality be as good - no. Does it take some time - yes. Look, just because a choice is too much work or has a negative, doesn't mean it is not a choice.

Actually, I believe doing that is a violation of the iTunes TOS, and besides that, it's just further proof of my point about why DRM is a bad thing for consumers, it creates extra hurdles and hassles and wasted blank CDs and poorer quality audio files that take away from the whole concept of point and clicking. "There's no step 3."

Sure, it's possible, but you're still being treated like a criminal by being limited to what you can do with the music you payed for, while the pirates have virtually unlimited choices for what they can do with their downloaded songs. That's just wrong.

 

[Zardoz]

This has probably been said, but I need to throw in my 2 cents...

Who is clammering for WMA on the iPod?! No one! Except Microsoft! Who wants to get tied into a Microsoft format, given their history of jacking around other companies with interoperability in Word, etc.?--let alone being subjected to another protected format! If I was a tech company executive, if I had to go with a protected format like WMA or ACC, I'd go with ACC or just make my own a la Sony. Microsoft wants WMA on the iPod so they can have some power over the device.

 

[ccuilla]

Originally posted by dricci
Something people should keep in mind is that Apple's contracts with the labels prohibit iTunes songs to be compatible with non-Apple devices. So even if Apple *wanted* to license their implementation of Fairplay to other manufacturers, they couldn't, at least not with other negotiations.

How do you KNOW this?

 

[Earendil]

Originally posted by dricci
Actually, I believe doing that is a violation of the iTunes TOS, and besides that, it's just further proof of my point about why DRM is a bad thing for consumers, it creates extra hurdles and hassles and wasted blank CDs and poorer quality audio files that take away from the whole concept of point and clicking. "There's no step 3."

As I posted before, I don't think anyone is arguing that DRM is an annoyence to some costumers. To say that DRM is "bad for all costumers" is a bit extreme. My Dad, who has downloaded hundereds of songs, doesn't have a prob with DRM. In fact, I bet the average consumer doesn't even notice DRM (few people own more than 3 computers). It is, on the other hand, the right of the artist/record company to do whatever they want to with their own music. And if they want to sell it that way, they WILL sell it that way. If you don't like their DRM products, don't buy them.

Sure, it's possible, but you're still being treated like a criminal by being limited to what you can do with the music you payed for, while the pirates have virtually unlimited choices for what they can do with their downloaded songs. That's just wrong.

You have a good point. But here is how I see DRM actually countering the file sharing. A few tings will happen.
A: They will shut down a very LARGE % of the P2P networks. I think a 1000 of the largest file sharers are already caught and being courted by the law. No, I don't believe P2P will ever go away (no one seems to touch the HotLine servers for some reason...)
B: Computer-to-computer sharing will still happen, especially among College students. I walk into dorms, and there are thousands of songs that I could copy from any one of a numbere of HDs. DRM won't cure P2P, it will put a dent in file sharing in communities among computers.

Even if P2P were gone, without DRM everyone would still share at college. If everyone brought their own music, plus their parents music to college, and shared it among even just their dorm, you would have 10,000 songs on every computer. Now if all those tracks were DRMed by either CD or Download, you wouldn't be able to do this NEARLY so easily.

I would like some higher quality from iTMS, this is agreed upon. But for being such a loud voice for anti-DRM you haven't told us how it effects you. Do you really own 4+ computers? Give us something to identify with so we can see your side. The "it takes away my freedom and rights as a consumer!" line is getting old...

Tyler
Earendil

 

[Mr. G4]

Originally posted by jakeludington
Choices are limited to playing songs in iTunes or playing them on an iPod. What if I want to play a song in RealPlayer, Windows Media Player, MusicMatch, or WinAMP? What if my company gives me a Dell DJ as a bonus for sales performance? Do I sell it on eBay so I can keep buying songs from iTunes? That's not choice, that's Ford's Model T in any color as long as it's black.

What's wrong with converting your song into Mp3 and put it on your iPod, or are the other stores don't allow you to do that.

If I have a DVD, I know it will play in a DVD player. If I have a VHS tape, I know it plays in my VCR. If I have a digital music file, who knows where it will play.

That's not true if you buy a DVD in the US you cannot play it in Europe or Asia unless you break the law by de-zoning your player...is that Fairuse also????

 

[dgdosen]

Re: REALITY CHECK:

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
When I read about the hand-wringing over the fidelity of AAC vs AIFF for a portable player, I have to laugh. We are talking about a portable device for listening to tunes on, not an audiophile listening device for a studio.

Before you complain about the "lossiness" of AAC, I would ask a few questions first:

1) Are you listening on the provided earbuds or a set of $300 studio headphones?
2) How much ambient noise is there in your car/gym/neighborhood when you are using it?
3) How "perfect" does the playback have to be for you to happily continue jogging/lifting/driving?

I agreee that mp3/wma/aac are fine formats for listening on the iPod. As a consumer, however, I'd like to manage one complete digital music (and video) library (hopefully very soon), and have that music suitable for use in a portable player, where quality doesn't matter that much, and on a home music system, where I don't like the sound of tiny cymbols and where quality does matter.

That's just my choice. I agree we've come a long way and the quality is very good, but i'm not going to put a huge investment into iTunes until the quality gets better.

In my Oliver Stone moment, I also think the only reason record companies are OK with Apple selling music is becuase it's of lower quality.

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

To DRICCI: Why DRM is GOOD for consumers

Let me spell this out for you:

1) Music is intellectual property, just like a patent, a book, a photograph, or a painting.

2) That property belongs to the ARTIST. They own all rights to it (or they have a partnership agreement with a label sharing ownership)

3) The artist and their representatives develop production and distribution schemes to "sell" their customers the usage of their intellectual property under very specific conditions. No copying except for back-ups for your own usage, no unauthorized duplication or distribution of their work without permission, etc.

4) When you buy a CD, you don't fully "own" the music to do whatever you wish with it. You bought the packaging, but you are really only "leasing" the music itself--a lifetime of use under the terms prescribed by the artist, enforced by law.

5) DRM helps protect artists and their representatives from theft. Protecting these property rights encourages artists to keep writing their music and keeps them fed. Yes, the enterprising hacker can get around any DRM, but the average Joe-Schmo won't waste the time to do it when a song costs $.99 .

6) By helping to assure an artist that their hard work won't be immediately stolen from them mere seconds after an album release, musicians can continue to roll the dice with their music and careers. I know, I know, musicians are all rich right? Well, not only isn't that true, but it makes no difference--stealing from a rich guy and a poor one is still stealing in either case. And musicians, especially pop musicians, tend to have "flash in the pan" career arcs and need to make a lot of money very quickly with any selling opportunity to stay alive artistically and musically in the long run. Or else it's back to baggin' fries @ Wendy's.

7) When you go to a bookstore and see the electronic sensing devices at the exit which detect retail theft, do you resent those measures? It means there is a little metal tab in you book that the store can use to expose thieves, altering the original packaging of the product you bought. And you are paying for those countermeasures in the price of your book. As well as guards, plainclothes agents, additional retail employee staffing, surveillance cameras, etc. Do all means of deterring theft bug you as much as DRM?

8) At the end of the day, it is your right to not be happy with any DRM. It is also your right not to buy any music encoded with any of them. Buy an acoustic guitar and a tape recorder. Write some of your own songs. Copy them to your TiVo, computer, 8-track, or whatever medium you find most convenient for you. Share copies with your friends at will--you are the artist, so you are in the driver's seat now. Of course, if the million-to-one shot occurs and you write a fabulous hit, don't be mad when it gets P2P'ed to ten million file sharers and you don't get a dime for your work.

In summary, an DRM is a compromise between the rights of the artist and the consumer. Apple's DRM scheme is by far the best ever devised to meet the needs of both sides. And until people stop stealing music, DRMs are unavoidable.

 

[clr900]

Originally posted by jakeludington
This isn't a WMA vs. AAC arguement, it's a discussion of portability. WMA is irrelevant. A unified format isn't necessary either.

Apple currently restricts usage of iTunes files to very narrowly defined parameters, because they fear competition from other hardware vendors.

For the sake of arguement, say I purchase 10,000 songs from iTunes. I probably have twice that many songs on CD, so it's not out of the realm of possibility.

I certainly could burn all 10,000 to CD and then rip them to WMA or MP3 so that I can listen to them on a device other than an iPod.

The average CD takes somewhere between 5 and 10 minutes to burn, with another 5-10 minutes to rip the tracks to WMA or MP3. On the low side, that's 10 minutes per CD, with the average CD containing 10 tracks, or 1,000 CDs. I can think of better ways to spend a week of my time.

After investing $9,900 in music, that seems to be a rather high price to pay for being able to use my songs where I want.

Why would you purchase songs off of iTunes instead of on cds. Lets say its because it is convenient. Hmm It's interesting how convenient and simple and easy Apple makes it to download music and transfer it to the best mp3 player on the market. Why would you want some crappy mp3 player made by dell that is a pain in the ass to use? If you are buying songs on itunes why do you want to play them on a crappy mp3 player when it is so easy to use them on an ipod? If you want to play songs on a crappy mp3 player then buy cds or buy them on an inferior online music store. The truth is Apple makes the best music jukebox software and makes the best mp3 player so why should they change so that their songs will work on other mp3 players or so that their mp3 player will play songs from other online stores.

 

[Photorun]

Re: To DRICCI: Why DRM is GOOD for consumers

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
Let me spell this out for you:

2) That property belongs to the ARTIST. They own all rights to it (or they have a partnership agreement with a label sharing ownership)

BZZT! Wrong answer D*I*S, nice though, wrong answer. Unless you're Metallica, Madonna, Dr. Dre, or a select privileged (and might I add rich) few, artists don't own or get in terms of money, jack poo!!! The big evil rich white businesses who could actually care less about music, artistry, or the real artists for that matter, own the music. This is the reason 99% of the state of music today SUCKS and why illegal downloading, had it succeeded in total implosion of the curret three or four big evil record companies that put out the drivel that is Britney/boy bands and other exceedingly slick packaged sh** would have been awesome... back to basics and true artists win. But you're wrong, artists don't own their own music, almost every contract is practically a deal with the devil, that's the sad state of the soulless music industry as we know it.

Signed,
An ex musician who was under a label and knows the real deal

 

[Docrjm]

Originally posted by Mr. G4
What's wrong with converting your song into Mp3 and put it on your iPod, or are the other stores don't allow you to do that.



That's not true if you buy a DVD in the US you cannot play it in Europe or Asia unless you break the law by de-zoning your player...is that Fairuse also????

Actually in Europe it is not illegal to buy or sell multi region dvd players.
In Canada you can also buy a multi region player, no laws broken. I have one, it is a supplemental player, a Daiwa.

 

[dontmatter]

Now that we're getting back into the old music piracy debate...(remember napster?)

So, I was just wondering, does anybody know how much, per CD, your average artist makes? And, not just the ranting and raving about the evil music industry sort-does anyone actually hae solid statistics? what is it for pop music vs. indie lables?

Of course, this has very little to do with AAC vs WMA, but then again, that doesn't seem to be the discussion anymore.


This is just out of curiosity, because I have a friend who is a *MAJOR* p2p user (windows, of course), and he justifies his use by having a policy where 2 weeks after downloading, he either deletes the thing, or sends a couple bucks to the artist. So, he claims that the artist is getting several times what they would if he bought the music legally, and he's getting it several times cheaper.

Now, I don't know if I believe him, as I think it would be almost impossible to figure out where to mail those $3 all over the country, and postage sucks, but....

just wondering on the moral question here, how much is the "music industry villian" justified, how much do musicians make from record sales vs. performances.

 

[couch11]

Don't count on the Recording Industry!

For those of you that say the Recording Industry should have picked the standard format and DRM should look back a couple of years. The industry dragged their feet when it came to DVD audio. They couldn't agree on the copy protection scheme and argued over it for years. While DVD video took off the DVD audio disc just stayed in development. Finally when they all agreed on the final format and copy protection, someone cracked it in a matter of days. The industry basically killed any chance for DVD audio to be a success. They would have done the same for legal downloads.

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

Photorun

It is you who are wrong regarding ownership. First of all, music all starts out as being owned by the artist exclusively. Sometimes they retain these rights, sometimes they sell them--but that is all up to the artist.

You are wrong about the numbers as well. There are 100-fold more artists who own their own rights than those who have been "signed" to a major label. They are called INDEPENDENT ARTISTS. That's what Metallica, Madonna, and your garage band down the street all have in common, actually.

If an artist, in the interest of expediency, decides to sell his/her publishing/royalties/mechanical rights to a label, that is not the label's fault. There is no gun to an artist's head--only their own knawing impatience and megalomania. Those who "sign" do so are cashing in their work for short term cash and a chance at mega-stardom, hoping the big marketing arms of the label will make them a household name. The label is betting that the artist and their material will be worth far more in the long run then they will offer him/her in a contract.

And so it goes. I get tired of the "evil label" crap. Of course they are there to sucker you. Everyone KNOWS this. No one is forcing you to bite that apple. There are indie bands out there who sell 10,000 units a year and make more money than a signed artist for a big label who has a gold record. The difference? The indie band scratches and claws there way to that level, usually though agressive touring--or just actually being good and original. Is is right to rob a casino because they are designed to rip people off? Don't go in and they can't touch your hard-earned money. Steal from one and you'll be coyote food in the Nevada desert faster than you can say "snatch 'n' grab."

The "labels are evil so p2p stealing is what they deserve" is one of the lamest argument ever for illegal and immoral behavior. I am all for the development of reasonably unobtrusive DRMs and for the smackdown the RIAA is doing on thieves. They can come check my HDs anytime. I OWN everything I listen to.

 

[billyboy]

From reading around, not personal involvement, the record companies are renowned for being sharp operators, no surprise, and bands who sign up to them are often very naive, or very forgetful of what they have signed up for.

I dont know the exact percentages paid to the bands, but my understanding is that a band is offered say 15% of revenue from all record sales. That sounds good if you sell millions of records, (which is what lures musicians to big companies in preference to signing for a little indie guy lucky to sell thousands of records) but in the short term the deal is exclusively in favour of the record company.

There is quite a good reason why the record companies dont pay their bands for a long time, and the bands know the reason very well. It costs a lot of money to become famous and it costs a lot to get a million records made and distributed. Also the failure rate is massive even with the best marketing. So when the likes of Sony agree to put up all the necessary money to promote an unknown entity with hit potential, then they cover themselves by saying, "All being well, one day you could be sickeningly wealthy, but until then from day 1, the band basically goes into debt for all the money needed by Sony to get them to the top. Sign here." The band agrees to pay the debt off by giving their 15% royalty straight to the record company until nothing is owed. Thereafter, the 15% or whatever percent was agreed ends up in the band's hands and they get filthy rich - in theory.


The evil associated with the record companies is not always justified, especially when disconsolate wannabe rock stars with flagging sales and flops slag off the record company for not paying any royalties. The reality is, they are being paid royalties, but they are being deducted at source, as per the contract, and they arent selling enough records to pay off the initial debt.

The genuine evil occurs when bands who are successful are either not being paid royalties even though they believe they have paid off the original debt, or they are receiving less than 15% of record sales in their hand.

The record companies have a habit of tagging on unexpected costs which boosts the debt unbeknown to the artist, and they likely will never pay off the debt nor see any 15% royalties in their hand. Also the record companyies have a reputation for keeping very "bad" records of how much royalties they have actually credited to bands.

Either way, when a successful band gets annoyed that they are being short changed, the costs to get a record company's books audited to prove any wrong doing can cost tens of thousands of dollars. That protects the record companies from being sued by all but the richest bands.

 

[thewickedmusic]

You know I'm not quite sure about this but... take an analytical adventure with me and ask..

Which of these two companies know more about audio? just to help you think about it I'll give you some of their achievements too.

Dolby Studios (Creators of AAC):

Analog Recording Technologies

•A-type NR
•B-type NR
•C-type NR
•Spectral Recording (SR)
•S-type NR
•HX Pro

Digital Audio Coding

•AC-1
•AC-2
•Dolby Digital (AC-3)
•Dolby E
•MLP Lossless
•AAC

Film Sound (I don't beleve anyone has significant has been used)

•Dolby Stereo
•Dolby SR
•Dolby Digital
•Dolby Digital Surround EX

Consumer Surround Sound (which they revolutionized)

•Dolby Surround
•Dolby Surround Pro Logic
•Dolby Surround Pro Logic II
•Dolby Digital
•Dolby Headphone
•Dolby Virtual Speaker
•Virtual Dolby Surround and Virtual Dolby Digital

Microsoft (Creators of WMA):

Computer Audio

•Propriety wma & wav (Enhanced with Digital Rights)

Now please correct me if I'm wrong, because I would love to have the facts straight, but who of those two has more experience and technical know how on audio? Yes that would be Dolby Studios and they have been recognized as the standard in almost every audio related field that they have touched. I'm not trying to put down anyone's opinion im just asking that if you consider yourself a true audio lover, then you should do some research before manifesting an opinion and considering it "superior." Besides looking up the achievements of the companies I surveyed the local audio professionals for their opinion on the job that Microsoft and Dolby had done in creating close to non-lossy audio in their compressed formats. Most of them backed Dolby



Well that's my little mini report on the issue and I dare you to ask "Who would you rather have in your player at the end of the day?"

Oh and please excuse my spelling or grammar - I never was a gifted writer

 

[splashman]

Originally posted by thewickedmusic
Which of these two companies know more about audio? just to help you think about it I'll give you some of their achievements too.

Dolby Studios (Creators of ACC):

<SNIPPAGE>

Oh and please excuse my spelling or grammar - I never was a gifted writer

The spelling and grammar are excused. But you could at least get the acronym right: AAC (not ACC).

 

[thewickedmusic]

Originally posted by splashman
The spelling and grammar are excused. But you could at least get the acronym right: AAC (not ACC).

hahahahahaha wow lol aaaaallll that and I slip up on the acronym

 

[dontmatter]

Re: Photorun

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
You are wrong about the numbers as well. There are 100-fold more artists who own their own rights than those who have been "signed" to a major label. They are called INDEPENDENT ARTISTS. That's what Metallica, Madonna, and your garage band down the street all have in common, actually.

Now, I have to be nitpicky and annoying, but since you present yourself as an authority, stating fact, I feel justified. I would be quite surprised if there were a hundred times as many independent artists as signed artists, and if that were the case, I would like to know your source, or your definition of "artist". But you claim 100 FOLD. I believe that is 2^100, or about 1.268*10^30. And, unless I'm mistaken, we're several years away from having 126765060000000000000000000000 people on earth, nevermind the number of independent artists.

 

[Barronbe]

How do I go about unlocking my iPod for more than one MAC? I know its possible, but I can't figure out how to do it?

 

[D*I*S_Frontman]

100-fold

Fine. I'll play along.

By 100-fold I meant the old biblical term meaning 100 times. If you take all of the current active recording artists from every MAJOR label, move the decimal point over two places, that would be how many independent artists there are. My definition of "artist" to be a performing musician of any type, either completely unsigned or on some sort of distribution-only arrangement with a boutique label.

Thios was meant to be an expression of overwhelming majority in the unsigned artist category, not a perfect statistical model. Sorry if the exaggeration threw you. My point is no less valid for the hyperbole.

 

[dontmatter]

Re: 100-fold

Originally posted by D*I*S_Frontman
Fine. I'll play along.

By 100-fold I meant the old biblical term meaning 100 times. If you take all of the current active recording artists from every MAJOR label, move the decimal point over two places, that would be how many independent artists there are. My definition of "artist" to be a performing musician of any type, either completely unsigned or on some sort of distribution-only arrangement with a boutique label.

Thios was meant to be an expression of overwhelming majority in the unsigned artist category, not a perfect statistical model. Sorry if the exaggeration threw you. My point is no less valid for the hyperbole.

Point well taken. Sorry, I understood that it was meant for the effect, not as pure data in and of itself-I just went overboard, because you stated your argument with the firmness that implies authority, and if you're claiming to be authoratiative, the details become important.

I must say, I do agree with the argument anyway, artists don't have to sign with the major labels that people villify. And while those labels may still be dominant enough that the choice to sign a deal may not be that much of a choice, if you wish to make a living as a musician, there are still many smaller and indie labels that musicians can make a living with, and I imagine are more artist friendly, such as my hometown sub-pop records.

 

[68k_575]

Originally posted by alset
I'll say again, WMA sounds god-awful.

I agree wholeheartedly, it does sound like crap. However, that's not a good deterrent because most people just don't care about quality. The legions of people who download <128 K MP3's off Kazaa have already proved that. Also, how are you going to get the typical person to think about formats? They just use whatever comes with their machine/MP3 player. Right now, iTunes for Windows is what Apple is using to turn the tide against WMA and get their software proliferated among PC users.

 

[dgdosen]

Originally posted by 68k_575
I agree wholeheartedly, it does sound like crap.

How can you call it crap if you can record at a higher bit rate? Are you saying 128 bit MP3 is better than 128 bit WMA? or 128 bit AAC?

What happens if you crank up the bit rate? Do you agree the sound is better? and if that's the case, can you get any better sound than lossless WMA? Comparitively, MP3 is crap... Please don't spread FUD.

I don't care what compression technology or DRM technology is used, just as long as it's open. The only thing open so far is AAC, but not when wrapped by Fairplay.