New iTunes Features: My Alerts and Complete My Album

[Diatribe]

Now if only they'd offer Lossless encoded songs and I'd never buy a single CD again.

 

[Rantipole]

I have stopped using iTunes because it's £0.79 for UK and $0.99 in the US - which is £0.50 after you convert currency. **** you apple.

In my trips to the UK, I've noticed music has always been more expensive, after translation, than the US. So, the **** you should go to someone else, probably not Apple.


The complete the album options is absofreakinlutely awesome. Now, if they would only upgrade the sound quality, I may actually start buying there.

I can understand the time limit, I suppose, but a year makes more sense.

 

[tk421]

It's a nice feature, even though a majority of my music isn't purchased through iTunes.

Did anyone else notice that only one reduced price album can be purchased?

Where did you see that?

edit: I found it. It is when a song you've purchased is on more than one eligible album. You can only buy one of the albums for that particular discount. Example: I downloaded a Collective Soul song, and iTunes offers me the album it came from or the greatest hits collection, both at a reduced price. This is because both contain the song I downloaded, but I can't buy both at a reduced price, just one. This has no effect on other albums by other artists.
This is also cool. They give you choice (in some cases).


Overall, I think Complete My Album is great. It will have two effects on me personally. 1) I will complete some albums, giving iTunes more sales and me cheaper prices. 2) I will be less hesitant to buy individual songs when I think that I might like the whole album, also giving iTunes more sales and allowing me to try a bit before I commit to the whole thing.

Good for the customer and good for iTunes!

 

[Diatribe]

While they're at it they could include a "complete my season" feature and discount for separately bought episodes of TV shows.

 

[Tara Davis]

A great step

The "complete my album" feature is a great idea.

Now they just need to start selling lossless tracks in order to become the only place I buy music from.

Getting rid of DRM is a nice dream, but I'm not holding my breath for it, and Apple's protections are sufficiently loose for my needs.

But lossy compression, while fine for my iPod in the car, simply won't do for my home stereo. Fix this, Apple, and you've got a raving fangirl for life.

 

[tk421]

Here's another question. Since not all albums are eligible, how do I know if an album is eligible before I buy a track from it?

Seems like most are. Looking through my history, I have only found a few that aren't there and 375 that are.

 

[wmmk]

Complete My Album (iTunes Link)

Perhaps more exciting is the "Complete My Album" feature which was previously rumored late last year.

"Complete My Album" allows customers to purchase the remainder of an album for a discounted price.



The reasoning behind this strategy is to provide more incentives to customers to purchase full albums -- or at least not penalize them for buying singles ahead of time. Previously, if you purchased a single song from iTunes ($.99) and later bought the full album ($9.99), you were charged twice for that song. This new feature helps avoid that scenario -- at least for certain albums and for a limited period of time.

[ digg this ]

Why only for certain albums for a limited amount of time?

 

[Mgkwho]

I'm sure someone has said this already, but I was too lazy to check:

Just for You is out of beta.


And the Complete my Album feature has repeats of albums I've bought more than one song from. Just show it once!!

-=|Mgkwho

 

[Doctor Q]

I was very surprised to find that Apple has done exactly what I personally told them to do. My most recent post suggesting the Complete My Album feature was in May 2006.

And here's the real smoking gun: If you compare my post from 2005 with what I see today in the iTunes Store, I'm sure you will conclude, as I did, that Microsoft gets its best ideas from Apple, and Apple gets its best ideas from MacRumors!

Then:

I want to be able to trade up from one or more tunes on a given album to the full album, for the difference in price, e.g., pay $7.99 instead of $9.99 to buy Jagged Little Pill if I have already purchased You Oughta Know and Hand in My Pocket individually.

Now:

​

Note: I bought a few more tracks since my original post, so the "upgrade" price went down.

Keep posting those suggestions for Apple and your dreams may also come true!

 

[Diatribe]

Keep posting those suggestions for Apple and your dreams may also come true!

They consistently keep on ignoring my request for Lossless media.

 

[onebloodonelife]

Where did you see that?

edit: I found it. It is when a song you've purchased is on more than one eligible album. You can only buy one of the albums for that particular discount. Example: I downloaded a Collective Soul song, and iTunes offers me the album it came from or the greatest hits collection, both at a reduced price. This is because both contain the song I downloaded, but I can't buy both at a reduced price, just one. This has no effect on other albums by other artists.
This is also cool. They give you choice (in some cases).

Ah, okay, that makes more sense. Thanks for checking it out

 

[Gasu E.]

And while we're at it, how about:
<>
2. re-download files previously purchased from iTunes - yes, even Mac hard drives crash and data is lost.

But #2, is obviously not the duty of Apple. That's nuts. You buy something and now it's yours. If you lose a cassette tape, a cd, a record, you certainly can't ask Walmart to replace it for you. So why now do you expect a company to replace your music (which was cheaper than the cd versions) when you lose it due to your own negligence? Yes, a hard drive crashing is your fault. It's certainly not Apple's. Unless it's under Apple's warranty, which of course states that they're not responsible for the data.

However, what if someone steals your computer or you cd collection? Your home owners insurance covers the cd collection. I would think they should also cover your downloaded music collection / software, etc.

Now, if your hard drive crashes and you lose your whole library, I wonder if your insurance would cover the loss of the music and software purchased online?

Oh, and get a backup drive already!

Gotta agree with caller #2. If it's not Apple's fault, and it works exactly like a CD, there's no reason Apple should add an innovation, even if it increases customer satisfaction and is entirely feasible to do.

 

[BornAgainMac]

I wish I can sell my songs I don't like anymore back to iTunes.

 

[huntercr]

THE ONLY AND SINGLE FEATURE that I want on iTunes:

True RESUME playback.

Great to listen to long playlists on the Mac. And I do not mean to sort songs by last played, but a true RESUME playback feature, as SoundJam MP had (the application from which iTunes was developed years ago).

I don't understand... how is this different from clicking "pause" ?

 

[mermaidshoes]

fyi, you could always get a one-time "duplicate purchase" refund from itunes if you bought a full album after buying songs from it (you'd get refunds or song credits for the individual songs). i guess that's not necessary anymore thanks to this new price reduction feature, but it could still come in handy for somebody. you can also get an "accidental purchase" refund (also one-time) if you buy the wrong song by mistake. that's how it used to be, at least... i haven't used the store in a while.

 

[Avatar74]

Now if only they'd offer Lossless encoded songs and I'd never buy a single CD again.

Despite what some self-proclaimed audiophiles love to maintain, 128kbps AAC is fundamentally indiscernible from dithered 16-bit Linear PCM (CD Digital Audio, aka "Red Book").

I have seen all kinds of flawed so-called A/B comparisons but never any substantial discernible differences from a rigorous double-blind test.

Also, it helps to understand that PCM is not really a perceptual coding schema like AAC. The bitrate requirements to achieve equal fidelity are determined by the efficiency of the encoding algorithm. AES has stated that 128kbps AAC is in fact indistinguishable from 16-bit dithered LPCM.

There are various aspects of digital encoding which can reduce bitrate requirements. The first of these is, of course, filtering out frequencies above the Nyquist limit that might otherwise result in aliased frequencies distinctly off from the fundamental. Quantization interval throttling and recording of only the change in amplitude from one sample to the next, instead of the absolute value, as in an ADPCM system also further reduce bitrate requirements without any perceptible loss whatsoever. Dithering is yet another technique, specifically used with lower rate bitstreams (e.g. 16-bit CD Audio) to add an iimperceptible level of noise that carries enough voltage oscillation to correct quantization interval errors.

I would say there is a marked and perceptible difference between AAC and 24-bit Linear PCM, even between 16-bit PCM and 24-bit PCM. However, it should be noted that the increase in amplitude quantization intervals between 16-bit PCM and 24-bit PCM is exponential... 65,536 possible values per sample at 16-bit versus 16,777,216 possible values per sample at 24-bit. The result is a tremendous increase in dynamic range from 96.3dB to 144dB! Most listeners will really have to squint their ears just to perceive a difference in AAC vs. 16-bit PCM. However, as I can tell you from trying to tell if I can see the hair-thin scratches on my lenses.

The more you strain your senses, at some point you have to ask yourself if it's not the squinting that is straining me and causing you to perceive things that aren't really there.

In the case of 16 vs. 24 bit it's a glaring difference on an order of magnitude many times larger than the difference between 128kbps AAC and 16-bit PCM*... and even then some folks still cannot tell the difference between 16 and 24!

Note that the dynamic range of AC-3, which as a perceptual coding schema is a direct predecessor to AAC (co-developed by Dolby), is about 103-105dB, assuming 192kbps for stereo and 448kbps for 5.1 surround. This is quite a feat and a good illustration of how perceptual coding schemas can efficiently reduce the data requirements to produce perceptual transparency.

* 16-bit stereo PCM at 44.1kHz sampling has a rate of 1.411 Mbps whereas 24-bit stereo PCM at 48kHz sampling has a rate of 2.306 Mbps... The difference between the two (note I'm comparing identical encoding methodologies, not AAC and PCM where bitrate comparisons are not apples to apples) is greater than the bandwidth of the entire 16-bit stream!

 

[johnmcboston]

But #2, (re-download files previously purchased from iTunes.)is obviously not the duty of Apple. That's nuts. You buy something and now it's yours. If you lose a cassette tape, a cd, a record, you certainly can't ask Walmart to replace it for you.

That's a nonsensical argument. You're not buying a physical thing, just a copy. They DO keep a list of songs you've already bought. It doesn't cost apple anything if you re-download a song. (and backup isn't a complete answer - only off-site backup will protect you)

Hey, emusic sells songs for less than itunes, in mp3 format, and unlimited re-downloadability... They're starting to get a lot more of my business...

 

[Avatar74]

That's a nonsensical argument. You're not buying a physical thing, just a copy.

The physical medium of a CD constitutes less than 20 cents of the cost of the item. Technically you're paying for the digital files on it (and implicitly the work that went into composing, recording, distributing and promoting them), which, like iTunes files, are just copies from a master.

So, as Roger Ebert would say... there you are.

PS: Even more technically you're not even paying for the digital files... you aren't paying for any random combination of PCM data or AAC data... you're paying for what the data represent and in that case the AAC data and the PCM data of a particular title represent exactly the same thing!

 

[Diatribe]

<long technical explanation of why I can't hear what I am hearing>

Sorry that you cannot hear a difference, I can.

To tell me a CD and 128 AAC is indistinguishable I can read Apple's page too, that doesn't mean I believe it though, especially not when I can hear a difference. Same as I don't believe Apple's perfomance specs.

 

[richard4339]

okay.. so the new features basically confirm Apple is tracking iTunes user data... (its only marketing, duh.) I'm fine with it.

And while we're at it, how about:
1. iTunes authorization management - can i PLEASE have the ability to de-authorize computers on my own?
2. re-download files previously purchased from iTunes - yes, even Mac hard drives crash and data is lost.

I'm assuming what you mean is the ability to remotely de-authorize computers, not just de-authorize your current computer or all 5. I think this is also a great idea, mostly because I've somehow already used all 5 myself, 2 have had HDD failures, and I can't de-authorize them now (and my reset has already been used in the last 12 months).

 

[rikers_mailbox]

number two would be awesome but can't you already do number one by going into the Store menu bar and clicking Deauthorize Computer. If you don't have access to the computer that is already authorized, you can deauthorize all from the itunes music store account page.

Are you asking for like a list of what computers are authorized and the ability to de-select one?

Yep.. it would be nice to see a LIST of the computers authorized to your account. The point being to de-authorize a computer without having to physically be using it.

edit: richard4339 clarified it better than I did.

 

[surferfromuk]

Despite what some self-proclaimed audiophiles love to maintain, 128kbps AAC is fundamentally indiscernible from dithered 16-bit Linear PCM (CD Digital Audio, aka "Red Book").

I'm not a 'self-proclaimed' audiophile I'm a musician and a producer and readily agree that 128K AAC is a clean bright and polished sound, equivelant in my opinion to 256K MP3. I will admit it's very difficult if not nearly impossible to discern artifaction but when you listen to a 128K AAC and then the exact same file at Apple Lossless ( or even 256K AAC) you will notice a difference in presence. All of the tangible differences are incredibly subtle but you tend to notice it in reverb, depth of soundstage and the 'tonal' quality of the treble and just the general cohesiveness of the mix,

I listen to my music through either a very expensive set of studio monitors which are designed to make music sound BAD ( or at the very least reveal flaws and imperfections that consumer friendly speakers do not) or a pair of expensive studio headphones. I will 100% admit you can't hear the difference on iMac speakers, cheap stereo or even ipod headphones but I assure you despite what the scientific graphs and boffins declare the sound is not as pure. Regardless of any of that - the bottom line is if the customer thinks there is too much lost they will buy a CD - and that's bad news for Apple!. That's where I am now and it annoys me becuase I would love to buy a ton of stuff from iTunes - I love it and I like it's distribution model but the long term compromise is too great. DRM doesn't bother me one bit!

I think Apple need to tackle this problem in a different way ;

ie You download Lossless or 256AAC but you can if you want SELECT by preference the a bit rate of the tracks that get put onto your ipod. This will allow them to retain the '1000 songs in your pocket' concept but allows the customer to hold a pristine archive copy on their mac/iTunes.

Actually I would even pay a 10% premium for lossless if it helps Apple cover bandwidth bills!, so that people who are happy with 128K AAC can still d/l at standard rate and that I would download at lossless and pay another £0.79 per album say...

 

[Shaun.P]

Can someone link to the Alerts thing in the UK store? When I click on the link in MacRumors, Safari opens a page of weird text.
I think it would be cool if I can find out how to get to the page!

Shaun

 

[spicyapple]

Nice but worthless feature for me. I'll buy a single song to sample the artist but I'll buy the whole album in retail or through Amazon.

DRM leaves a bad taste in my mouth, not to mention you don't get a physical high quality compression-free original.

 

[Diatribe]

I'm not a 'self-proclaimed' audiophile I'm a musician and a producer and readily agree that 128K AAC is a clean bright and polished sound, equivelant in my opinion to 256K MP3. I will admit it's very difficult if not nearly impossible to discern artifaction but when you listen to a 128K AAC and then the exact same file at Apple Lossless ( or even 256K AAC) you will notice a difference in presence. All of the tangible differences are incredibly subtle but you tend to notice it in reverb, depth of soundstage and the 'tonal' quality of the treble and just the general cohesiveness of the mix,

I listen to my music through either a very expensive set of studio monitors which are designed to make music sound BAD ( or at the very least reveal flaws and imperfections that consumer friendly speakers do not) or a pair of expensive studio headphones. I will 100% admit you can't hear the difference on iMac speakers, cheap stereo or even ipod headphones but I assure you despite what the scientific graphs and boffins declare the sound is not as pure.

I think Apple need to tackle this problem in a different way ;

ie You download Lossless or 256AAC but you can if you want SELECT by preference the a bit rate of the tracks that get put onto your ipod. This will allow them to retain the '1000 songs in your pocket' concept but allows the customer to hold a pristine archive copy on their mac/iTunes.

Yeah I agree with you on everything. Although I can hear a bigger difference between 320 AAC and Lossless as say between 192 AAC and 320 AAC.

And the down conversion feature is one that WMP had for years now and I wished Apple would add every time they revise iTunes.