Sidebar Sidebar
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?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the future, you'll (assuming we can cut a deal with Apple Records on that nasty trademark matter) be able to plug you iPod into your Mac, browse a library of songs via iTunes, and download them directly to your iPod over broadband or AirPort. Micro-payment (well, semi-micro; on the order of a dollar per song) will be handled through the .Mac "one click" system, which Apple licensed from Amazon and already uses in iPhoto for buying photographic prints on line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

has anyone else noticed that the rumor says nothing about this apple service allowing you to download mp3s to your computer?

rather, you use i tunes to _browse_ the online library, and you download _directly_ to your ipod. you pay $0.99 to have a song on your ipod, and nowhere else (assuming you don't use software to allow you to port mp3s from your ipod to your mac)

in my mind, this distinction would be the only way for apple to get around the copyright issues from all the major record companies and get a comprehensive library of tunes. without a _massive_ music library, this service will most likely flop

how would ppl feel if indeed this service only allowed for direct download to your ipod and in fact didn't give you "full" mp3 access? would ppl still be willing to pay $0.99 / song?

but enuf with this, when are we getting new ipods? i've been holding my breath since december for a thinner, less expensive 20gb
 
I'll tell you why this will work...

You hear a song on the radio, or on MTV. You want it.

You can go out and buy a CD for $15+ and maybe like some of the other songs. You can go on to Gnutella or Xolox and search for it, and hope that you can find it and that it's good quality. Sure, if it's top 40s, it'll be there in spades, but what if its something new or eclectic? Or you can use Sherlock or however its implemented and for a measily $1 get the song you want right now with good quality.

Most people want to pay for music they like, to support the artists they like, but they dont' like paying for stuff they don't want, or the idea that most of the money is going to the rec company. Most people want it now, with good quality, and little hassle.

As long as it is pay-per-song, people would use the system even if there isn't that great a selection. However, inorder to get the volume necessary to be profitable, Apple would need to make sure they have a large catalog, and can get new songs fairly quickly.
 
I can understand someone paying for songs, but I just wouldn't
do it. I think it would be a good idea of apple's, unless they limited
the songs on the iPod to only the songs you have bought from
apple or something else Microsoftish like that.

It would be even cooler to be able to stream music wirelessly
from apple's servers onto your wireless internet iPod, but I'm
just dreamin'.... ;)
 
Originally posted by drastik
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.
Click to expand...


I don't know what to tell you, I listen to mostly alternative and Pop-Punk and my cds at BestBuy (they usually carry them cheapest) range from $6.99-$13.99 usually. Some are special promo prices like the first week a cd of a smaller band debuts a cd otherwise they are usually in that range. Id rather buy a cd because i typically like the songs that aren't online or are obscure online just my preference tho. I honestly cant remember buying a Cd for more than 13.99 tho. If i do find a cd like that I usually check sites like half.com or whatever for new versions.
 
I remember a few years back hearing something about Chuck D from Public Enemy, fed up with Record Companies and the like, releasing an entire album's worth of Mp3s directly from his website (for a small fee). At the time I heard this, I swore it was the wave of the future.

If Apple was able to put something together where Bands/Artists could skip the ugly, greedy, Record Company middle man and drop there albums straight into this service, it would be a great great thing, and I would be all over the $.99 fee.

Maybe this just suits my taste for independantly produced music (I don't really see a Britney Spears or Creed type releasing their albums this way), but this would be truly revolutionary. Add to it the ability to stream songs as a preview (ala Amazon, etc.) and one of those "if you like this artist than you'll like this artist too" (also ala Amazon, etc.) and Apple could have a very powerful, very influential thing here.

In light of other discussions of the day, if this were to be a .Mac service, and if Apple indded wanted it to catch on, wouldn't it be a good idea to open up .Mac to Windows users as well?

I like this - Artists need a way to get their music to the public without the help of greedy record companies, and they need to get paid for it. I always applauded pro P2P musicians - from Limp Bizkit, to Chuck D, to even Courtney Love (although this is the only aspect of Courtney Love I've applauded since "Live Through This") but always felt as if they deserved some sort of monetary compesation for the music they make. I never had any desire to pay any corporate fat-cats.

Davis
 
Ummm irc

Uhh,

Am I the only person reading this forum that uses IRC?
There are literally hundreds of thousands of mp3s from obscure stuff to the newest albums at your fingertips on IRC. This is the reason why pay-per-song sites fail. The selection on a site like this could NEVER match whats on IRC. Get with the times guys. But don't steal music. Only download songs you have a legal copy of. :D
 
The ppl downloading the music online are not willing to pay very much, especially since they are mostly teenagers and college students who cantn afford it anyway, as noted above.

The music companies, however, can sabatoge the music online by posting a whole bunch of corrupted files under the same name, or with the same size. They dont even have to be garble, they can just be like "PLEASE DONT STEAL MUSIC, PLEASE DONT STEAL MUSIC, ETC", that would avoid limewire's anti-corruption software
This would be particularly effective now since many programs download from multiple users. ONe corrupted file could destroy many. (hard to explain).

Next, the quality of music on the web is not so great. I know some of you cant tell the difference between 128 and 192 bit, but I can. The speakers on my computer are only 62 bucks (cambridge soundworks) and i can still tell the difference no problem.

The ease of use would be amazing if apple could integrate the into itunes 4. I think many people would rather know for sure they could get it online as a high quality version than mess around. I am a really cheap guy and I know I would.

Also note, apple has a huge amount of bandwidth to play with. If you ever download software from them, you will notice that you can easily get 800 kb/sec.

There are two issues though. I doubt people would be willing to pay a dollar a song. I personally would be more willing for 50 cents, or mb 75 cents a song. I might be willing to pay a dollar a song for the really really good onees, but what about the other ones that are on the cd that arnt as popular? They're good to listen to as well, but i'm not going to be killing myself for them.

Also, Apple would have to get alot of artists in on this. I know some artists are willing to go on the net, some even post mp3's on thier website. But alot of them havnt even used a computer. Many of the ppl that are on the net are big computer geeks. The artists didnt play around on a computer, they played on thier guitars. They might not fully understand what is going on with the file sharing.

Next, if apple wants this to work, the songs have to be unprotected in all ways. Many artists may not go for that, but it's the only way it will work. As soon as you start adding protection, things get much more complicated, and customers start getting pissed off. The artists need to understand that they either can get some money for thier stuff through this system, or get no money from thier stuff because of limewire and kazaa.

Am i forgetting anything? what do you guys things?
 
touche

Originally posted by pic9809
how would ppl feel if indeed this service only allowed for direct download to your ipod and in fact didn't give you "full" mp3 access? would ppl still be willing to pay $0.99 / song?
Click to expand...

Very good point.

So including .99 cent "downloads" you'll also have to slap on a $300 to $500 dollar .mp3 player.

Ha! So much for cost effeciency.
 
Originally posted by pic9809
how would ppl feel if indeed this service only allowed for direct download to your ipod and in fact didn't give you "full" mp3 access? would ppl still be willing to pay $0.99 / song?
Click to expand...


No way. I use iTunes as much or more as my iPod. I mean, I would be able to play from my iPod through my computer, but that would be needlessly cumbersome. How, for example, would I ever be able to organize the downloads into playlists?
 
Originally posted by DeusOmnis
Also, Apple would have to get alot of artists in on this. I know some artists are willing to go on the net, some even post mp3's on thier website. But alot of them havnt even used a computer. Many of the ppl that are on the net are big computer geeks. The artists didnt play around on a computer, they played on thier guitars. They might not fully understand what is going on with the file sharing.

Am i forgetting anything? what do you guys things?
Click to expand...

I agree with most what you said, especially the fact that having mp3s available on a high-bandwidth server is a huge plus, compared to having to wait an hour to download a song over kazaa (or whatever).

I would just like to add that, in many cases, the artists themselves likely have little say in how their music gets distributed. It is the record company that is in charge of distribution. So, the fact that an artist may not be really computer savy is not that important. What is important is that the upper-execs in the record companies see that this is a good move for them.
 
Originally posted by pic9809
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the future, you'll (assuming we can cut a deal with Apple Records on that nasty trademark matter) be able to plug you iPod into your Mac, browse a library of songs via iTunes, and download them directly to your iPod over broadband or AirPort. Micro-payment (well, semi-micro; on the order of a dollar per song) will be handled through the .Mac "one click" system, which Apple licensed from Amazon and already uses in iPhoto for buying photographic prints on line.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

has anyone else noticed that the rumor says nothing about this apple service allowing you to download mp3s to your computer?

rather, you use i tunes to _browse_ the online library, and you download _directly_ to your ipod. you pay $0.99 to have a song on your ipod, and nowhere else (assuming you don't use software to allow you to port mp3s from your ipod to your mac)

in my mind, this distinction would be the only way for apple to get around the copyright issues from all the major record companies and get a comprehensive library of tunes. without a _massive_ music library, this service will most likely flop

how would ppl feel if indeed this service only allowed for direct download to your ipod and in fact didn't give you "full" mp3 access? would ppl still be willing to pay $0.99 / song?

but enuf with this, when are we getting new ipods? i've been holding my breath since december for a thinner, less expensive 20gb
Click to expand...

You make a good point. I don't have an iPod but would be interested in this pay-to-play idea.

I would pay 99¢ for a song...in a heart beat. I don't steal songs and would love to be able to download a song. (As long as the selection is good. I'm not a mainstream person and my tastes are not top 40.) I would even get a .Mac account to get this service...HOWEVER, if I have to have an iPod to do it I can't justify it unless the 'pods drop in price a good bit.
 
Originally posted by weev
The pay per song idea has life, especially if you get a high quality (224 Kbps) file so it sounds as near to CD quailty for the audiophile ear.

Pirate songs are way less than this and only good for previewing songs, IMHO.

Damn it, I have Linn hi fi (linn.co.uk) and only want the best sound. And it seems pretty straight up that mp3's will eventually - in time - replace CDs and ALL our music purchases will be through this type of method.

Go Apple, GO!

weev
Click to expand...
Not for awhile. Especially since there's no guarantee that CD quality audio will be good enough after a while. SACD or DVD Audio (hopefully SACD, which I own several of) will eventually gain the market - although it may take awhile.

On top of that, downloading ruins the concept of the album as an artistic statement. While many artists do only throw together a bunch of songs, some of the more serious and often better artists put together an album - songs that work together cohesively. Downloads can kill this concept.

And even at a high bitrate, compression will make it so that true matching quality will never happen. I'd rather have an uncompressed CD at this point in time. Maybe it's just because I like to listen to whole albums and not just to songs. Most people nowadays don't have the attention span to do it. Such a shame.
 
Originally posted by Mr. MacPhisto
On top of that, downloading ruins the concept of the album as an artistic statement. While many artists do only throw together a bunch of songs, some of the more serious and often better artists put together an album - songs that work together cohesively. Downloads can kill this concept.
Click to expand...

The album concept has only existed since the invention of the phonograph. Songs, on the other hand, have been around since almost the beginning of life itself. Any medium for art is subject to be altered by technology. While the loss of the album as an art form may be a sad thing, I think it's just something we'll have to get used to. (Frankly, I think the whole concept of an industry for recorded music has been outdated by the digital revolution, but since there is too much money tied up in it the execs would rather hide behind arcane copyright laws than face facts and close shop.)
 
Re: Re: This is a silly thought but...

quote:
Originally posted by esome
One of my favorite songs happens to be over an hour long so $0.99 would be a steal.
Click to expand...

Originally posted by mangoman
I'll bite. What song is it?
Click to expand...

'Thursday Afternoon' by Brian Eno.
 
Originally posted by drastik
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.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you buy yours at a local store; that's a ripoff. Look online for deals, most of my cds cost roughly $12
 
Something I've noticed about the existing pay sites is that most of them only support customers in the USA. For this scheme to work, international support is a must. However, the problem with international support is that once international users can come in, you really need to start including music from international bands. I've found it very difficult to find P2P downloads of local bands, but often can't be bothered going down to buy the CD. Therefore I usually don't have access to the songs at all (actually I discovered a local P2P service a few days ago and have found a lot of local music on there but that's beside the point :)).
 
Best Buy , others to sell mp3s for $0.99

From the NY Times:

LOS ANGELES, Jan. 26 2003 ? Six of the largest music retailers plan to announce on Monday that they are joining forces to sell music that can be downloaded from the Web.

The retailing group, called Echo, consists of Best Buy, the nation's No. 1 electronics retailer; Tower Records; the Virgin Entertainment Group; Wherehouse Entertainment; Hastings Entertainment; and Trans World Entertainment, which operates the FYE store chain. The six retail companies will each own an equity stake in Echo that together will make them majority owners.

The new effort is motivated in part by the two-year decline in compact disc sales that has forced recording companies to cut costs and lay off employees and has damaged music retailers, too. Wherehouse Entertainment, for one, announced last week that it was filing for bankruptcy protection from its creditors, in part because of lackluster CD sales. And earlier this month, Best Buy announced that it would close 107 stores.

Like the recording companies, music retailers are searching for new sources of revenue. Vinyl albums and cassette tapes have nearly disappeared in recent years, leaving retailers with the CD as their main option for selling music. But a proliferation of free music-swapping services, among other factors, has led to a decline in CD sales. According to Nielsen SoundScan, which tracks album sales, 681 million were sold in 2002, down from 785 million in 2000.

"Obviously, there has been a lot of talk in the last three years and there have been a lot of failures," said Dan Hart, the chief executive of Echo, referring to earlier attempts by legitimate Web sites to sell music online. "But we see this as an inflection point. Retailers are saying, `This is the time to do it.' "

Mr. Hart said that Echo hoped to get licenses from the recording companies to distribute their music through the retail chains' own Web sites. In November, the Universal Music Group, which is owned by Vivendi Universal, began to distribute 43,000 of its songs through major retail and music Web sites, like Best Buy and Circuit City, for 99 cents a song or $9.99 an album. That total has since grown to 60,000.

Liquid Audio, a company that has developed technology meant to allow the secure sale of music online, has rights to 350,000 songs for downloading, but also has deep financial problems. The company agreed last week to sell some of its assets to the music distributor Anderson Merchandisers for $3.2 million as part of its liquidation.

Anderson, which is the music distributor for Wal-Mart Stores, also wants to be a distributor of downloadable music in retail outlets. That could eventually put Anderson in competition with Echo, but Mr. Hart said Echo was not opposed to working with Anderson.

In fact, Mr. Hart said he expected the pressures facing all parts of the music businesses ? including distributors, retailers and recording companies ? to motivate them all to work together to find a viable alternative to piracy. "People are saying, `Let's make it work on a real level,' " he said.

Such cooperation in online music ventures would have been unthinkable two years ago as retailers and music companies were at odds about how to best approach online music sales. More than a years ago, music labels embarked on their own online efforts, but so far they have received less than rave reviews.

Now, though, the music companies and the retailers need each other more than ever. Recording companies make the music, but it is retailers who know their customers. "Retail has always been about more than simply selling CD's," said Jerry Comstock, the chief executive of Wherehouse Entertainment. "We are in the customer relationship business."

Under Echo's plan, once the group received the necessary licenses, the partners would market their services together and separately. Efforts might include promotions like "Buy a compact disc, get a free download." The retailers could also enable customers to download music in stores using portable devices, like the Apple iPod. "No one has really marketed these services," Mr. Hart of Echo said.

But some analysts suggest that no matter how much creative and marketing muscle is behind such efforts, they will not catch on unless the music is priced right. The average cost of a compact disc, according to the Recording Industry Association of America, the lobbying group which represents recording companies, is $14.21. Many critics say that is expensive when compared with other media, like DVD's, which offer loads of extra features and programming.

"Any opportunity retailers have to find additional revenue in a time of falling sales is a positive," said Michael Nathanson, an analyst at Sanford C. Bernstein. "Yet we continue to think that pricing has to come down to get pirates off of the free sites and onto legitimate ones."
 
That bit about how cd's are expensive compared to dvd's is unbelieveably correct. Think about how much it takes to make a cd, and how much it takes to put together a dvd. A cd is a few guys sitting together in a recording studio. As much as any person wants to dress it up, that's as much as it is. What they produce, although effective, is often not very creative when compared to the contents of a dvd movie. A quality movie takes more talent in all key areas such as writing, preforming, and recording, than any cd. It also covers two mediums, light and sound, as opposed to just one.

Question: When you watch a dvd, do you ask yourself, 'did that look pretty?', or do you ask yourself much more than that.

Personally, even though I listen to quite a bit of music, if I was to say that the content of a quality dvd movie was 20 dollars (LOTR, Matrix, etc), then I would have to say the content of a CD is a dollar. One dollar.

I dont see anyone paying 16 dollars for a hot dog, but apparently they would if everyone had since it first came out.
 
This sounds like it would be a great service, and probably easily integrated into iTunes and .Mac, but seem like the kind of market that Apple would be extremely reluctant to get into. But does follow Apple's policy of "Helping honest people stay honest" like they did with the family liscencing for 10.2. Still seems like too iffy of a market for Apple to personally jump into.

But I would understand Apple letting somebody come in and offer it through .Mac. Possibly offer it free with the .mac membership (sill pay-per-song) or at a discounted price for .mac members.

This would take a lot of legal and financial responsability out of Apple's hands.
 
$1 / song

I was just discussing this issue with my brother a few days ago, and I thought that $1 a song would be pretty reasonable. Forget all of the packaging, or the middle-men stores. The biggest problem would be getting a large enough selection of songs available so people could 'legally' buy these songs and own them.

I know there have been a few times where I heard a song, but only wanted that one song, and didn't want to shell out $15-$20 for the entire album, with chances that the rest of the album might bite.

But similar to the problem offered with Columbia House, if only the big name songs are available, that might alienate potential customers if they already have the big-name material, or don't really care about it. That's the main reason why I stopped using Columbia House...nearly all of the albums I was buying were never offered by Columbia House...most of what I get are European and Japanese imports since they either don't come out in the U.S., or are released later. And even if they are released in the U.S., they generally don't have a large enough distributor to make CH's lists.
 
About a year ago I was contacted by a company doing research on behalf of Apple, many of the questions they ask regarded my itunes/music usage and whether i downloaded music from the internet. At the time i thought maybe they think i'm dodgy!!!!! So i wouldn't be suprised if a music service was the case. I'd be happy to use it as long as it was available to UK users.

Mind you, i wouldn't mind the updated iPod to appear soon. I imagine there's going to be an update of iTunes and we will have to wait until iTunes and the iPod are ready. They will both be released together.
 
I just picked up a small brochure at Tower promoting this service. It makes sense and it looks like music retailers get it (if not the RIAA).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back