Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
nuckinfutz said:
I think not.

Movie downloads as a hot item is years away. Apple will not be adding quicktime capability to the iPod anytime soon either.

Oh, I think so:
http://news.com.com/Napster+eyes+movie+downloads/2100-1027_3-5548022.html

If you read the article, its already happening to a limited extent.
Quote:
"Online movie distribution has already taken off to a small degree in the United States, with Movielink and CinemaNow selling films via the Web from $2.99 upwards."

Adding QT capability to iPod is a natural progression. You show granny your photos.. and next you'll be able to show granny your films you made on your camcorder or digital camera.

To say "QT won't be added any time soon".. well, none of us really know what is coming next, unless you have inside information.
 
Apple Netting More Than 3 Cents per Song Now

Aside from sheer size and the ability to spread costs over a larger number of song sales, Apple has leverage from:

1). Promotions like Pepsi (One big check per month with no credit card charges).
2). Gift certificates over a 1,000,000 sold (no credit card and lower servicing charges), i.e. cash in advance, so even interest earned if escrowed until used.
3). Pay Pal, again no crdeit card charges and summary checks once a month, little to no carry or service charges.
4). Audio downloads of books, NFL games, etc, have higher profit margins.
5). Watch for first releases and independent labels where the formula doesn't include high or no fees, the artist gets paid directly.

Apple's expenses are higher now because of new country expansions, but at some point this will go down (when most countries have a music store).

In time, profit margins will grow and become a significant contributor to the bottom line and at the same time margins will go down on the iPods as we know them today. Of course, new models, new gadgets and new ideas will have the higher margins.

Thus, continued innovation is the lifeblood and it flows best at AAPL!
 
schatten said:
Even Jobs pointed out that there's no money to be made in selling music online. iTMS is there to sell iPods. Those companies whose sole profit is their online music sales will probably fail.
That was back when they expected to sell 1 million downloads in the first 6 months.

Obviously, with DL's being over 1 million a day, things have changed a bit market wise.

Sushi
 
fatfish said:
If I was going to watch a movie on my mac's 30" screen, I'd want something much better than VCD quality. Never really paid much attention to VCD, it wasn't good enough for my old 21", but what size are they typically?, I know some come on 2 CD's, so we are talking 600-1200 Mb. Downloading will be a nightmare.

So after 4-5 Hrs you get a poor quality movie that you have to pay for - NO THANKS.
There are some places where you DL a 600-1200 file in seconds.

...and an entire DVD in 10-15 minutes or only the movie in 5-10 minutes.

.....today! :D

Sushi
 
lem0nayde and a million others said:
Again, I wasn't considering the fact that people would reimport it in a re-compressed format. I would reimport it at a lower (or no) compression rate than the original (either AAC or AIFF) so as to retain maximum quality. I also forgot that Apples sells songs at such high compression - which is kind of annoying (even if they do sound good.)

Now I can understand the concern, though it doesn't affect me either.

correct me if im wrong but (going back to the swiss chesse metaphore) if you take your drm'd-aac and burn it to cd in the uncompressed aiff format you make swiss cheese right? because the starting file had chunks taken out by the acc compressor. now if you compress an aiff file into aac (assuming apple uses the same compressor for their music store as they put in itunes) wouldnt it remove the same stuff every time? if so, wouldn't it be removing nothing from the already empty holes in the file/cheese? in other words if their compressor has removed certain frequancies (inaudible ones), then we put it in a larger aiff format, still without those frequencies, and then we run it through the compressor again, wont it just not find any of those frequencies and spit out the exact same file, only without drm (or metadata)?
 
A lot of work

Starting iTMS has probably required a LOT of effort (from a lot of very well paid people :p ) I'm glad Apple can make a little money out of it.

RIAA (and others around the world) were like a big pile of rocks slowly eroding. And it takes a lot of effort to convince a rock to move.
I guess no rock will ever have moved if napster and kazaa didn't exist. Thanks Napster, without you it would have taken a little longer before Apple could sell its 10 millionth iPod :cool:

It shows that a lot of work (and belief) can lead to success. That's good to hear.
 
Well..

open iTMS Norway and I'll add to that number! We'll give you lots of black, thick oil! I know we can't match the Saudi-Arabs, but we'll be able to give you some oil anyways..


..I guess I'll at least add some to the number. Tho I have this plan of swapping the harddrive in my G4 iMac 700 with a 160GB one or something, just because of music. Apple Lossless, Apple?

(now that music can be encoded when transported to the iPod, it is actually a possibility..)
 
chaos86 said:
raises eyebrow...

do you work for the government?

Sweden is a good place. In Småland. Where Emil in Lønneberget comes from. If you've heard of him. (probably not! :()

You can get 1Tb lines there, for just a bit more than a 1Mb lines cost here in Norway. Bummer!

Me wants to move to Sweden!!
 
Music Videos, anyone?

nuckinfutz said:
I think not.

Movie downloads as a hot item is years away. Apple will not be adding quicktime capability to the iPod anytime soon either.

In terms of the long term development of the iTunes Music Store, I would love to see them add music videos. Then I could have music with videos when I have my iBook handy, and have the option of loading just the audio onto my iPod.
 
And this is news because???

Big f---king deal! My only wish is that Apple come out quickly with a iMovie video on demand store, and that I had bought apple stock 21 years ago. Happy Birthday Bitch!
 
Humphhh

A lot of good that is to us in Oz. I have decided to visit apple.com.au every day and use their search function to search for "Australian iTunes Music Store". All you other aussies do the same - maybe they'll get the message :p
 
pgwalsh said:
I have bought a lot more music downloads than I ever anticipated. 85% has been from the Apple store. The other 15% has been from European download sites that offer small label songs; that Apple may never offer. I have bought only a couple CD's and mostly from overseas. Apple offers very little in the European Goa and Psychedellic Trance. <snip>

Agree about the lack of Goa/Trance.

I bought an album yesterday (Foretaste by Shamen) from another online Music Store that was powered by MusicDock. A truly awful experience (and looking at the MusicDock website, they charge the artist 40% of the proceeds for the service).

It really made me appreciate iTMS.
 
Stella said:
Oh, I think so:
http://news.com.com/Napster+eyes+movie+downloads/2100-1027_3-5548022.html

If you read the article, its already happening to a limited extent.
Quote:
"Online movie distribution has already taken off to a small degree in the United States, with Movielink and CinemaNow selling films via the Web from $2.99 upwards."

Well, Apple also wasn't the first to offer music as paid downloads. They were the first to do it right, though. It'll most likely be that way if and when they offer paid movie downloads.

The reason there is no iTMS-like movie store is quite simple, IMO:

1. the major film studios must get their act together first; and
2. Not enough people have broadband connections to make having such a service make sense.
 
I might be wrong, but I just don't see how Apple could declare this as the year of HD, and then announce some whimpy little VCD-download service.

And DVD is too early for now.
I have a 1200Kbps line, I guess many people have even less.
A 6GB DVD would take approximately 11 hours 6 minutes and 40 seconds to download at optimal speed, when not using the internet for anything else.

I wouldn't dare to try to download Schindlers List!! :eek:

How big would a HD-movie be, btw..?


The maths:
A 1200Kbps line will have a maximum download speed of 1200/8=150KBps.

6 GB = 6 000 000 KB

6''KB / 150KBps = 40 000 seconds
 
jxyama said:
just because the format of the file is uncompressed AIFF doesn't mean it's CD-quality. AAC already discarded some information in the process of initial encoding. "decompressing" it up to AIFF format does not bring back the information that's already been discarded. at best, AIFF upcoded from AAC will sound as good as the original AAC. then you compress it again to DRM-free mp3 and you've got even more information loss. iTunes isn't doing anything tricky, like you suggested.

yes, you cannot tell anything about this. you don't even know how apple has made the aac file being sold - has it been encoded from the 16bit/44.1kHz cd version or straight from some 24bit/192kHz master archive. if it has been encoded from higher quality master, then the 128kbps aac file might actually sound BETTER than the 16bit/44.1kHz aiff cd version. it is possible, folks, you just cannot believe it unless you hear it yourselves.

just the same way you can do a higher-quality DVD movie (480p) out of analog film material (about 11MP/frame) than shooting the same material with a 480p camera and viewing it uncompressed. granted, the quality difference in this video analogy is a lot huger, but still...
 
rosalindavenue said:
the original song lost a lot of "bits" in being compressed to AAC-- and those original bits are not reinstated when the AAC is blown back up to AIFF. So the AIFF is like a swiss cheese copy. I think the re-burned track does retain the original quality of the DRM'd AAC, but that quality is not the quality of the real full uncompressed track.

original song does not lose bits. you don't compress bits, you model the waveform and compress that model. if you would compress bits, we would be talking about lossless encoding, which aac is not.

aac models the waveform that converted to analog and again to air pressure is what we hear. on the other hand, the model of the waveform models the bits that construct the waveform, but instead of using bits/second this aac model uses algorithms that try to estimate the original waveform as closely as possible. this is in other words lossy compression, as the original waveform cannot be 100% reproduced. the higher the bitrate, the more precise algorithm can be saved, and thus the more exact representation can be reconstructed.

BUT you have to understand that the bits/second encoding of aiff file is also an estimate of the original analog waveform. it is just a model based on sampling instead of a model based on some clever algorith. these both are models that try to estimate something that we can hear, and we cannot hear either digital file without converting that file to air pressure.

so the question is: what method gives the most accurate representation of "the" air pressure that we want to hear? if we take the same source, then, in many cases, aac wins. but if we model the aiff file from the master audio and then model the aac file from the aiff model, then, because aiff file is closer to the source, aiff wins no matter how good the lossy encoding would be.
 
lem0nayde said:
Right, I know that converting to AIFF doesn't magically bring back any information. I tend to rip using the highest AAC encoding - so I guess I didn't consider people who might want to rip it to an MP3, which would be a fairly severe double compression and definitely degrade sound.

correct: converting to aiff doesn't brong back anything. it just preserves whatever is left from the original audio.

incorrect: mp3 -> aac is NOT double compression. it is double encoding. yes, it degrades sound, because of the fact that the both are lossy encoding methods, but that loss of quality does not come from compression but the fact that another lossy encoding of the already lossy encoded material re-encodes the mistakes that the first encoding has introduced to the audio material. the best that the second encoding can do is to make zero new mistakes and the resulting waveform would have as few mistakes as the result of the first encoding.

encoding is not compression. compression means decreasing the file size with a lossless method and a compressed file can always be decompressed with 100% accurate output. encoding however means decreasing the file size with a lossy method (a jpeg photo for example) and de-endoded output is never 100% accurate.
 
lem0nayde said:
saving a digital photo as a compressed jpeg - you can reopen the photo and save it as an uncompressed tiff, but all of the compression artifacts will remain. If you open the tiff and save it again as a jpeg you are doubling the compression artifacts. The rule pretty much applies to any digital media file - movie, sound, picture. If compression is applied, you aren't ever getting the original quality back.

again, to clarify, compression and encoding are two different beasts: lossless and lossy. this comment should be:

"saving a digital photo as jpeg-encoded, you can reopen the photo and save it as an uncompresseed tiff, but all of the encoding artifacts will remain. if you open the tiff and encode it again as a jpeg, you are doubling the encoding artifacts. the rule pretty much applies to any digital media file - movie, sound, picture. if the material is encoded [with a lossy algorithm], you aren't ever getting the original quality back"

jpeg is not compression. it is a way to encode image data to a lot smaller file size, if it were ok not being able to get the original data 100% back.

tiff is not compression either, it is an uncompressed file format that often uses LZW compression algorithm (which is lossless because it is a compression algorithm). tiff file format never loses quality, as there is no encoding anywhere.

is this point clear now :D :D :D
 
Points to ponder about your bullet points

Mr.Bob said:
Aside from sheer size and the ability to spread costs over a larger number of song sales, Apple has leverage from:

1). Promotions like Pepsi (One big check per month with no credit card charges).
2). Gift certificates over a 1,000,000 sold (no credit card and lower servicing charges), i.e. cash in advance, so even interest earned if escrowed until used.
3). Pay Pal, again no crdeit card charges and summary checks once a month, little to no carry or service charges.
4). Audio downloads of books, NFL games, etc, have higher profit margins.
5). Watch for first releases and independent labels where the formula doesn't include high or no fees, the artist gets paid directly.

Apple's expenses are higher now because of new country expansions, but at some point this will go down (when most countries have a music store).

In time, profit margins will grow and become a significant contributor to the bottom line and at the same time margins will go down on the iPods as we know them today. Of course, new models, new gadgets and new ideas will have the higher margins.

Thus, continued innovation is the lifeblood and it flows best at AAPL!


1). Promotions like Pepsi (One big check per month with no credit card charges).

Yes, but Apple is surely giving the songs to Pepsi for less than 99 cents.


2). Gift certificates over a 1,000,000 sold (no credit card and lower servicing charges), i.e. cash in advance, so even interest earned if escrowed until used.

You have printing and distribution costs of the plastic cards - but this is probably your best point for higher dollar achieved.

3). Pay Pal, again no crdeit card charges and summary checks once a month, little to no carry or service charges.

As an ebay stockholder - my quarterly statement says differently here. It says the iTunes Music Store deal offers PAYPAL less of an expense because they don't have to offer cash back to premum users. The credit card processing is actually higher than Apple's merchant rate of 1.2%.

4). Audio downloads of books, NFL games, etc, have higher profit margins.

Not so on all purchases. But good point.


5). Watch for first releases and independent labels where the formula doesn't include high or no fees, the artist gets paid directly.

Also good point.

As for my math, Apple is said to have made less than 1 million on the iTunes Music Store so far. But I have read they are making, after expenses, about 3 cents per song average.
 
dejo said:
Okay, I decided to verify for myself whether there is really is a noticeable difference when moving from AAC > AIFF > AAC > AIFF > AAC. And it's true! Everytime you re-encode to AAC, you lose a little more of the acoustic quality of the song. I doubted you guys but you are correct. I apologize. In fact, even when converting from AAC > AIFF, the waveforms are not exactly the same!

i can't say that i'm very surprised about this. try taking a BMP image>JPEG>BMP>JPEG, etc. everytime the computer has to compress something, it slightly changes the data. when it goes to recompress, the data is slightly different than it was the original, so it has to compress it slightly different and on and on. i don't see why AAC/MPEG audio compression would be any different than JPEG image compression. it's just taking the areas that we really focus on and compressing them less and areas of less detail & compressing them more.
 
Poff said:
Sweden is a good place...You can get 1Tb lines there, for just a bit more than a 1Mb lines cost here in Norway.
1Tb -- sounds great.

In Japan (at least the Tokyo area) you can get FTTH (100Mbps) for around $50-60 per month depending on the exchange rate.

Of course you can always get faster lines at a higer price. :D

Sushi
 
Poff said:
I have a 1200Kbps line, I guess many people have even less.
And some have faster connections! :D

Poff said:
A 6GB DVD would take approximately 11 hours 6 minutes and 40 seconds to download at optimal speed, when not using the internet for anything else.

The maths:

A 1200Kbps line will have a maximum download speed of 1200/8=150KBps.

6 GB = 6 000 000 KB

6''KB / 150KBps = 40 000 seconds
Or with FTTH (100Mbps) you can easily DL at 8MB per second.

A 6GB DVD would take about 12.5 minutes.

And considering that most DVD movies are smaller, if you exclude the extras, then it would take even less time.

Sushi
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.