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.
New iPods and New Music Service?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Of course .99 a song is a steal if you only like 1 or 2 songs per album. I cannot tell you how many times I but a CD for 12 to 21 bucks only to have 1 or 2 good songs I care about. .99 or even up to 5 bucks fro 5 songs is a steal.
My guess is that Apple will be proactive in some way about copyright issues. Rather than be forced to comply later by Congress, they will adobt a middle of the road system. Maybe one that only allows a MP3 to be shared on internal networks or some such. Probably not technically feasible.
What would be nice is if Apple does this, its NOT just for Macs. It would get ALOT of PC folks using Apple sites and bombarded with Apple tech and maybe over time they would see the light
;-).
But for fast reliable and legal DL, .99 is not bad. P2P is often slow, unreliable, and poor quality. Plus many servers require 'memberships' or its a 'this for that' exchange. For those who only need a few songs, this kind of situation is perfect.
Now if only the iPods would come out soon.I have got $400 burning a hole in my account and I need a iPod to spend it on!
My guess is that Apple will be proactive in some way about copyright issues. Rather than be forced to comply later by Congress, they will adobt a middle of the road system. Maybe one that only allows a MP3 to be shared on internal networks or some such. Probably not technically feasible.
What would be nice is if Apple does this, its NOT just for Macs. It would get ALOT of PC folks using Apple sites and bombarded with Apple tech and maybe over time they would see the light
;-).
But for fast reliable and legal DL, .99 is not bad. P2P is often slow, unreliable, and poor quality. Plus many servers require 'memberships' or its a 'this for that' exchange. For those who only need a few songs, this kind of situation is perfect.
Now if only the iPods would come out soon.I have got $400 burning a hole in my account and I need a iPod to spend it on!
Sorry but $.99 for an .mp3 does not sound like a good deal, a 15 song cd costs roughly $15 so you would be paying the same for mp3's, only there is a quality loss in mp3's and the fact that you not only have to download them but also burn them to a disc which also costs money (albeit cd-r's are cheap now.)
I doubt this will become a reality.
I doubt this will become a reality.
a thought...
Has anyone thought that the service (if it comes to light) will be AAC oriented?
Higher bitrate songs which take up less space so bandwith costs will be lower.
Thoughts?
Has anyone thought that the service (if it comes to light) will be AAC oriented?
Higher bitrate songs which take up less space so bandwith costs will be lower.
Thoughts?
Audiophiles want AIFF/WAV, not MP3
If they gave (broadband) users the option of downloading an AIFF or WAV file instead of an MP3 file, I'd jump on this in a second.
An MP3 file is fine for the tinny speakers on my iBook, but I want uncompressed, full resolution audio for my stereo system.
I didn't spend $$$ on my Harman/Kardon and JBL components for nothin'!
If they gave (broadband) users the option of downloading an AIFF or WAV file instead of an MP3 file, I'd jump on this in a second.
An MP3 file is fine for the tinny speakers on my iBook, but I want uncompressed, full resolution audio for my stereo system.
I didn't spend $$$ on my Harman/Kardon and JBL components for nothin'!
I would pay $0.99 to download a good quality song.
Actually, I think this is what the record industry needs. They keep complaining about piracy. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind paying a buck instead of searching all over the net for a song of unknown quality.
Actually, I think this is what the record industry needs. They keep complaining about piracy. I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't mind paying a buck instead of searching all over the net for a song of unknown quality.
High quality is important if your paying for the music. If this was geared towards the ipod, the songs wouldn't have to be half that quality to hear the difference.
In fact anything over 190kbps is hard to hear the difference unless you've got a tuning fork for an ear
Anyway - I think the songs would probably have to be even cheaper than this to get anyone buying them. Possibly one hit wonders, but you can pick up an album with 16 songs on it for £8.99 at cdwow. If they did deals on whole albums that would work well.
eMusic does have a no-string-attached service right now. $15 per month with unlimited downloads...sure its only 128kbps MP3s, but I can't really tell the difference, and this service has saved me a lot of $$
Where are you people buying 15$ CDs? I really want to know. I buy around ten CDs a month, and most of them are at least $18. Of course, I don't buy a lot of the pop stuff, so the sales don't usually hit my shelf. On the other hand, I occasionally find a gem for ten bucks.
.99 is a good price. I would go for it.
.99 is a good price. I would go for it.
ipod coming soon.
I think the .99 cent per mp3 file is a good price, people are already paying that for a ringtone for the cellphone.
I really hope Apple releases a 5gig iPod for under 200 bucks. An iPod for 199.95 would sell like hotcakes and also fuel their online music service.
I think the .99 cent per mp3 file is a good price, people are already paying that for a ringtone for the cellphone.
I really hope Apple releases a 5gig iPod for under 200 bucks. An iPod for 199.95 would sell like hotcakes and also fuel their online music service.
Many of the bands I like are unknown's or struggling bands that need CDs sales so their independent label's won't dump them. And the bands that I do like that have made it I still buy their albums 'cause I want to support them. If Ms. Love wants her songs to be traded that's great. If she's the copyright holder she can do what she wants w/them. But what about the artists that don't want their songs to be traded? It's their music and, by law, they dicate how and when their songs can be distributed and used. IMO it's about respect and general principle.
But on topic... If Apple does do some sort of music service like this there's got to be a twist to it 'cause 1. it's Apple and 2. services like these usually fail so probably need to do something different to make it work. I wouldn't do it for 99 cents a song though. I'll d/l songs from a P2P for free and if I like them I'll buy the album, if not they get trashed.
Lethal
I know I am nearly deaf, so a 128 vs 192 MP3 sounds the same, but how much difference, even on a good stero is there between AAC, AIFF/WAV and high quality MP3? Other than the theoretical difference, is it even perceptible?
Also, I was told by some friends who have a recording contract that todays CDs are often recorded in a lower quality format even thoug they are written in WAV. Meaning they save costs in studio and do all the production stuff at a level where a 192 MP3 would not impact quality. But I am no expert on this so i may have misunderstood.
But on my iPod, or typical car stero or even a home system for a non-audiophile would I really notice a difference/
Also, I was told by some friends who have a recording contract that todays CDs are often recorded in a lower quality format even thoug they are written in WAV. Meaning they save costs in studio and do all the production stuff at a level where a 192 MP3 would not impact quality. But I am no expert on this so i may have misunderstood.
But on my iPod, or typical car stero or even a home system for a non-audiophile would I really notice a difference/
Why do you shop that CDs are usually $18 a pop? Where ever it is stop going there 'cause I bet you can find them cheaper someplace else.
Imports are the only things I usually spent more than $15 or $16 for.Lethal
I can see the .99 thing working as other have said if the selection is there... it's a different market the the full length CD Market so the agruments about it costing 15$ to download a cd, I don't see as relevent.
How many folks would have paid .99 to get Nora Jones on Sunday Night? I would have. Had to get if from limewire instead... but I would have paid for it if there was a legal way to get that one song.
With Steves Hollywood connections, pehaps Apple has enough cred to pull somthing like this off.
How many folks would have paid .99 to get Nora Jones on Sunday Night? I would have. Had to get if from limewire instead... but I would have paid for it if there was a legal way to get that one song.
With Steves Hollywood connections, pehaps Apple has enough cred to pull somthing like this off.
Re: Never before the iPod
Ditto. On both accounts. As well, there was some discussion on a previous thread about the value of an iPod, all I have to add to it is that it's the biggest change to my music listening habits since my first CD player
Ditto. On both accounts. As well, there was some discussion on a previous thread about the value of an iPod, all I have to add to it is that it's the biggest change to my music listening habits since my first CD player
The twist? I'd expect to see straight-to-iTunes functionality implemented, tying the downloaded mp-3 to one iPod (and one computer?), unless other means are used.
remember the p2p audience
People are forgetting that the majority of P2P music swappers are teens and college students with fat pipes who don't have any money and DON'T CARE that they are pirating. Personally I would always buy CDs if they were only $5 a pop?I like to have the physical CD, case, and especially the liner notes.
$.99 is too much for kids to pay...and remember, younger kids don't have credit cards so one-click is bull.
People are forgetting that the majority of P2P music swappers are teens and college students with fat pipes who don't have any money and DON'T CARE that they are pirating. Personally I would always buy CDs if they were only $5 a pop?I like to have the physical CD, case, and especially the liner notes.
$.99 is too much for kids to pay...and remember, younger kids don't have credit cards so one-click is bull.
iPod Anti-piracy Measure
Couldn't Apple just utilize some sort of software/firmware compatibility between the music files and iPods? Make it so they're only playable via iPods, possibly? I don't know...
Couldn't Apple just utilize some sort of software/firmware compatibility between the music files and iPods? Make it so they're only playable via iPods, possibly? I don't know...
Incorrect
Actually it's the opposite for digital recordings nowadays. While CD quality is 16-bit/44.1khz, many recordings are done at 24-bit and 48, 96 or 192khz (this is NOT TO BE CONFUSED with the rate MP3's are available at. A 24-bit/192khz audio file would be approx 60x bigger than it's 192kbps MP3. And it would sound MUCH better (to me that is, whether your ear cares or not is another story).
I do like this idea in theory but I don't want to pay for something that is not tangible. Right now, I spend approx. $200 per month on music on CDs and vinyl. Those CDs are immediately ripped into iTunes and then they go to the shelf with the rest of my "collection". I need to have a physical package for a variety of reasons:
1) Liner notes are req'd reading for me. I want to know who produced the song, where it was recorded and by whom.
2) The artwork is important as well. I have a problem with artists who just make songs since their is no sign of an actual vision. The artwork is the link between the theme & the music. This is what seperates a compilation from an album.
3) Since my collection also sits in my recording studio, it also gives my clients an impression of me and my tastes. Nothing breaks the ice better than realizing you both like the same obscure artist.
So I'd love this for the obscure remixes, B-sides, live recordings and freestyles, but I much prefer to drop my change at the local Mom & Pop store and get something I know I will always have and not have to worry about hard drive failures killing my collection (just fires, theft & floods).
peace
Actually it's the opposite for digital recordings nowadays. While CD quality is 16-bit/44.1khz, many recordings are done at 24-bit and 48, 96 or 192khz (this is NOT TO BE CONFUSED with the rate MP3's are available at. A 24-bit/192khz audio file would be approx 60x bigger than it's 192kbps MP3. And it would sound MUCH better (to me that is, whether your ear cares or not is another story).
I do like this idea in theory but I don't want to pay for something that is not tangible. Right now, I spend approx. $200 per month on music on CDs and vinyl. Those CDs are immediately ripped into iTunes and then they go to the shelf with the rest of my "collection". I need to have a physical package for a variety of reasons:
1) Liner notes are req'd reading for me. I want to know who produced the song, where it was recorded and by whom.
2) The artwork is important as well. I have a problem with artists who just make songs since their is no sign of an actual vision. The artwork is the link between the theme & the music. This is what seperates a compilation from an album.
3) Since my collection also sits in my recording studio, it also gives my clients an impression of me and my tastes. Nothing breaks the ice better than realizing you both like the same obscure artist.
So I'd love this for the obscure remixes, B-sides, live recordings and freestyles, but I much prefer to drop my change at the local Mom & Pop store and get something I know I will always have and not have to worry about hard drive failures killing my collection (just fires, theft & floods).
peace
I agree that they'll use a middle of the road approach.
How about a EULA for each download? It's a more legally binding form of the honor system.
Regardless of whatever system they use, what I want to know is whether major labels will cooperate with a company that uses a method of distribution with few strings attached. An Audible-like method of protection was mentioned. Audible will let you use files from your account on three or less computers. If Apple were to use something like that, I think the RIAA bastards would take issue.
P.S. There must be a MUCH larger library of songs to choose from than is currently available from existing download companies.