|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
Apple Music Service?
|
Login/Create an Account
| Top
| 130 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I imagine that this kind of service costs much less than traditional distribution of physical media. No packaging, no shipping, and yet they are basing the pricing on the current model for distribution.
CDRs cost about $.50 right now. I bet that manufacture and shipping of an album costs less than that.
The royalties musicians see are miniscule.
Yes. (My GF is getting $25 a song doing backing vocals.)
The record companies are just greedy.
Yes, but they are going to take their cut first.
I hope that Apple sets up a well developed publishing system for Artist's who aren't signed to record labels.
Yes! And while they are at it how about making this global so us poor ol' Americans (how I pity us) can have access to the stuff which never makes it over from Europe (and Asia)?
It ain't going to happen. It's going to suck. Apple is selling us out (I hope I'm wrong). I want my OGGs. I want mod points like five minutes ago. I don't suffer from insomnia--I enjoy every minute of it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not sure you are correct.
Apple released AAC with QT6 and hyped it as the default audio codec for *MPEG-4* files. Some simple tests I've done makes me believe the hype too. AAC sounds *lots* better than mp3 at even lower bit and sample rates.
Presently in QT there isn't even an MPEG-2 option so any QT-based video apps (after effects, fcp, premiere, etc) can't output MPEG-2 (tho obviously, iDVD and DVD studio can).
AAC isn't tied to any video codec as far as I know so the argument is mute anyway.
cheerst.whid
http://www.mteww.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @04:30PM (#9158)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot burn a CD of MP3's, but, you are able to burn a normal music CD anytime you want.
it does prevent you from easily giving away your files to someone else, because each file that you have only works for your L/P
How are these two mutually compatible, then?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @10:05PM (#9182)
|
|
|
|
|
|
amen to that. I DEFINITELY want to be able to EASILY (people will rip it if they want no matter what) store the music on my local HD (not just the iPod over firewire) I one of my internal HDs for listening to music 24/7. I honestly would pay for the music if I could use/organize it the way I do now.
mdavis@mkd.cc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did I read that right? The iPod will support AAC playback?
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
there's something special about buying a CD, it has a booklet, back cover, art on the disc...
People used to make the same arguments about buying albums instead of CDs, since the artwork was larger, the booklets were more detailed, and so on. But in the end, the music won out over the packaging, although the packaging is still important. I see the same thing happening here: If it's a special album that I want to buy, I'll pick up the CD; otherwise, I'll download the songs I want and leave the rest.
To download an album with 15 songs, you'd spend the same $15 that it'd cost on a store. Except that you DON'T get a nice booklet, back cover, or a physical copy of the album. That is, they would be charging the same for less!
Maybe you listen to different music than I do, but most of the CDs I buy have fewer than 15 songs, so the downloaded version would be cheaper. But even if it did have 15 songs, then just go buy the CD. Some people might rather have the downloaded version so they don't have to go through the trouble of ripping the CD themselves. I really don't see the problem here. It's an addition to the current system, not a replacement.
Hey, sure, a booklet with lyrics may be irrelevant for poppy-shit fans. If lyrics meant anything to them, they wouldn't be listening to Bitchney Spears or the Backstreet Bullshit anyway.
Now see, you take a good point, and then alienate a bunch of readers because you come off like a curmudgeonly music purist. Personally, I care about the music, and I don't really care that much about reading the lyrics (and just to put it in perspective, this is from a Yes fan). And if I really want the lyrics, I'll look them up on the internet. Again, no big loss here.
Talking about Tull... how would they charge for an album like "A Passion Play"? It only has one song two tracks... for a total playing time of 45 minutes.
Or Tales from Topographic Oceans, Relayer, 2112...there are lots of one-side songs. Maybe they'll charge based on length also. In any case, it's not an insurmountable problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I guess this article about Apple signing off on the MPEG-4 DRM issue makes more sense. From the limited knowledge I have of audio codecs there arent many ways to "secure" mp3, so the next best thing is to take second generation codecs and build it in from the start.
Extra linkage: The ISMA
ISMA launched in late 2000 in an effort to accelerate the market adoption of open standards for streaming rich media over Internet Protocol. Last year, ISMA released its v 1.0 specification, which defines an end-to-end implementation agreement for streaming ISO-compliant MPEG-4 video and audio over IP. The group signed on last week four new members, Coding Technologies, ContentGuard, Nextreaming Corp. and VBrick Systems.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The article says that Apple is sticking up for its users, requiring that we be able to burn purchased songs to CD's. I hope they stand firm on this issue, because without the ability to put purchased songs on CD's, I'd have little use for the service, since I don't have an iPod and CD's are what I use to make my iTunes library portable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @11:13AM (#9235)
|
|
|
|
|
|
I only hope this doesn't mean that iTunes will lose the ability to play and encode MP3. That would really spoil the party.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
But I wouldn't use this service to download an entire album. I'd use it to buy one-hit wonder singles, and buy entire albums of artists I really like elsewhere (amazon, local music store, artist web site).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
since when do you decide whats a fair price to sell music at? can i come to your job and tell your boss you only deserve 10cent and hour? do you realize the costs that go into making a song, studio time artist time, pre/post production etc. then hosting the song along you think 10 cent a song can cover gigs of data hosted in multiple locations across the us then on top the of that insane fast bandwidth so you can get the song? your demanded 10cent a song wouldnt even get you hosting on a dial up. yet you want the whole thing for that much. the current distribution costs arent anything im sure a cd packaged and sent to the store shelf is less than 1.50 per cd.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday March 05, @11:51AM (#9247)
|
|
|
|
|
Gaijin baka writes:
Even if this kind of service was magically created I would still use file sharing of the illegal variety. The internet is the worlds largest bootleg swap and I love it.
==========
Man, I wish folk would see that this is exactly like shoplifting, but with a non-physical product.
I may get small royalities, but they provide for my family. Record companies should undergo some reform, but not by devalueing my work and art! Next, I suppose I should perform for free, right?
Pay for work, people, be it a brick, a toilet installation, a tooth filling, a performance, a composition.
Don't pirate.
Please..., otherwise, you're just a common thief.
-- a composer-performer from whom you may have stolen
P.S. gaijin, i'd like to hire you for a week, please. But after you've worked, I'll probably not pay you for your labors.
Doesn't feel right, does it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Thursday March 06, @03:55AM (#9248)
|
|
|
|
|
>Gaijin baka writes
Let me give you a hint ... gaijin is Japanese for forgeigner and baka is Japanese for idiot. So, this guy is calling himself a "foreign idiot"
However, I don't think that his post was so idiotic after all, most of it looks very reasonable.
>Record companies should undergo some reform, but not by devalueing my work and art
Record companies should disappear altogether. They are only in the way of everybody else, artists, consumers and electronics industry. The record companies are the problem.
With high quality recording facilities becoming household items and with more efficient music distribution becoming possible via internet based services, who needs record companies?
If musicians can produce an album either in their own home studio using Macs/PCs or by renting such a studio on an hourly basis for a reasonable price, what do they need record companies for?
If musicians could then post their album on an online music service that pays them based on the number of downloads, what do they need record companies for?
Of course this won't happen overnight, but eventually this is what the music business will be and it will be better for musicians and consumers.
Musicians will benefit because they can get their work out far easier and they can experiment more. They will not compete for limited space in a record company's catalog and record shops' shelves, they will get more and better exposure to consumers and thereby the average musician will sell more music. Also, as the distribution system will be far more efficient, they will get a bigger cut even though prices come down. The price reduction will not come from the musician's share of the pie, it will come from the record companies' unreasonable large share.
Consumers will benefit from more choice, easier access and lower prices. And the electronics industry will benefit, too, because if there is more content and easier access, there will be more demand for devices. There will aslo be more demand for home studio equipment.
So, the only guys who will lose out in this are the record companies because they have outlived their usefulness. That is why they are so reluctant to change. They don't quite know how to deal with the new situation technology has created. They don't want to lose the grip on the artists they exploit.
Some of them may eventually realise that their time is definitely up and they will convert themselves into online music services. Some will simply go out of business. Should we be sorry for them when they disappear? I don't think so.
>Don't pirate ... otherwise, you're just a common thief.
It depends. Do you think I am a thief if I download a song of yours that I already paid for because I bought an album of yours on vinyl and I want to upgrade it to a digital recording?
I am happy to pay for that upgrade to digital recording if the upgrade price was reasonable. Say, if I could walk into a record shop and trade in an LP for the same album on CD and I pay nothing more than
1) share of the cost of remastering the CD
2) production cost of the CD
3) reasonable profit margin on 1 and 2 (ie 30%)
4) handling charge to pay for shipping and record shop
I reckon this should not be more than 6-7 bucks per album. Instead I pay almost three times that.
This is unreasonable, it's greed. That greed by record companies has done more harm than anything else. It has caused people to be so pissed off that they have no hesitation anymore to download pirated music. Once people download pirated music they already paid for, you have opened a panorra's box because many people won't stop there, they will then also download music that they did not pay for. It is the record companies which are responsible for piracy, noone else.
>-- a composer-performer from whom you may have stolen
I really hope that you and other artists will go with the time and embrace new distribution schemes and cut off the record companies from music. The overwhelming majority of consumers are happy to pay for your music, but we are pissed off about your agents who ripp off both yourselves and us.
>But after you've worked, I'll probably not pay you for your labors.
That analogy is incorrect. It would be more like you are hiring somebody to come to your house to change a lightbulb and then you get an invoice from the ***agent***, the invoice saying something like
1 - labour $5
2 - transport $50
3 - lightbulb $20
4 - agent's fee $100
would you pay the $175? I don't think so. You'd call up thye guy and complain, You'd say "couldn't you come by bus and bring a lightbulb from the superstore next door, cut out the agent and I pay you $20 for your time?"
You artists shouldn't complain about people trying to cut out your greedy agents. Get rid of the agent and people will pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Wednesday March 05, @05:07AM (#9277)
|
|
|
|
|
>If anything, pay-per-song will make it harder for album-oriented rock acts like Pink Floyd, who will lose even more ground to catchy three-minute bubble-gum songs from one-hit wonders
This would only be the case if the pricing scheme doesn't adjust accordingly.
It would be reasonable to assume that some pricing scheme will emerge that has different prices for "bundles". For example there might be a flat $1 fee for an average song of up to 4 minutes and an additional 25 cent for every minute above that length; there might be a price for a maxi-song, for "half-an-album" and full-album or something along those lines. I am confident these marketing folks will certainly be smart enough to work something out that makes sense.
At the very least, there should be a price for an entire album and some albums may only be available as an entire album.
Take Mike Oldfield's Amarok where the entire album is in one piece. Do you think the labels will allow that to be counted as one song? I don't think so. I'd rather think that this will count as one album and consequently there would have to be a price for an entire album.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Friday March 07, @01:10AM (#9298)
|
|
|
|
|
|
afterall they believe the whole fucking world revolves around them!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @09:06PM (#9322)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aww, thats actually rather nice, how often do you see a father passing on his trade these days? Quaint folk ways should be encouraged.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Sunday March 09, @06:49AM (#9352)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Already done. emusic.com. I've been a happy customer for years. And I did have to pay extra for the iPod -- but the two together have changed my "music life" completely, for the better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think you may have missed my point. Normal CDs are unencumbered raw PCM audio. So burning a normal CD has nothing to do with either MP3 or AAC. Normals CDs, and the music on them, can easily be given away to your friends.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I will gladly pay for what I use if:
- I can buy it 1 track at a time
- pricing is reasonable
- I can burn it on CD that will play on any CD player or computer
- I can transfer it any other computer in my house
- They open it to "lesser-known" performers/independent artists
I think I can guarantee that they won't hit more than 3 of those. I will not buy music that has DRM restrictions or only plays in 1 application.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @03:58PM (#28314)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whoever moderated this, you're wrong. This is not a troll. This is absolutely the straight shit. Follow the link! Read and learn!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Get XM radio and you can get digital-quality recordings. I have been recording off my XM receiver for some time.
Still, you never know what songs you're going to get, and sometimes my cuts between songs are not so artful and lose a little of the song. With this new service, if I hear a song on the radio that I love, I can own it in less than 5 mins. Cool. For this I would pay.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
so rather than pay for the music your again going to steal it like everyone else? just because someone makes it free doenst mean you have to steal it. walk into the mall and steal some stuff its just as easy as going on some p2p and searching. or wait your too much of a wuss to steal when your not hiding behind a computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @04:21PM (#28328)
|
|
|
|
|
|
yea.. hmm.. no.. that won't happen :).. Hell, MS hasn't even done that yet.
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
n this respect we have really something to look forward to because if per[sic] per song distribution does take off it will ultimately lead to much better quality music, like those classics from Jethro Tull, Pink Floyd, Led Zeppelin, Deep Purple, Chicago etc etc etc. Gotta disagree with you there. If anything, pay-per-song will make it harder for album-oriented rock acts like Pink Floyd, who will lose even more ground to catchy three-minute bubble-gum songs from one-hit wonders, like "All The Things You Said" by t.a.t.u. In an environmnet where sales are made for individual songs, an album like Jethro Tull's legendary "Thick As A Brick" (two tracks, one per LP side) simply won't happen. A few more steps, and we'll be safe in the Fire Swamp.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @04:25PM (#28352)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe not with current iPods, but what about the new revs supposedly coming out? The ones with radio, recording capabilities, etc., etc, ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @03:51PM (#28361)
|
|
|
|
|
And I suppose there were vast armies clamoring for AAC support for the iPod?
People like you are always deriding vorbis users for their apparent lack of numbers....
Tell me, are the numbers of people requesting support for aac (or wma, mp3pro, etc.) really that much greater?
I myself filled out an iPod feedback form on apple's website a couple months back asking for vorbis support. How many here have requested support for any additional audio codec, regardless of what it was?
(http://www.apple.com/feedback/ipod.html)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I agree. I love the Audible model and I have been hoping that Apple would use it for music with a partner. A couple of points to note, however. You are limited to registering your audible username on 3 different systems, but each one could have an ipod associated with it, so potentially, 3 ipods. Also, the ability to burn or not is controlled by the content. In audible, if it has the CD icon, it can be burnt. If not, iTunes won't let you burn it. I imagine music would work this way too.
That said, I don't care about the ability to burn anymore. We use our iPods everywhere, car, home stereo, kitchen speakers, home theater, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
From the limited knowledge I have of audio codecs there arent many ways to "secure" mp3, so the next best thing is to take second generation codecs and build it in from the start.
Except that once you're able to burn it to CD, you've lost all control over it. Unless you're running a Palladium-style deep DRM, anything can re-rip the audio back.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm not interested in ever burning CD's. I pretty much only use them for archiving now. It seems pretty stupid to have to burn a CD in order to rip the tracks I paid for to use on my other macs. I want to know if they will let legitimate users access their paid-for assets on more than one machine. It seems reasonable that if I am allowed to take my music with me on my iPod, I should also be able to transfer to another Mac that I own and listen to them...especially because one of my macs is a powerbook!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @11:46AM (#28407)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now thats a mature adult and responsible response. "I'll just steal it". I assume from that comment that you pretty much steal anything you can get away with. Your parents must be so proud, and just think of the example you'll be setting for your kids. "Hey son, don't worry about paying for that. Steal it, just don't get caught!"
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
yeah, screw downloads! woohoo!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @11:54AM (#28409)
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK troll, I'll bite...
Grab a CD... Make a 128kbps MP3... Make a 64kbps and a 128kbps AAC.... Listen... There...that's the difference...
It's amazing how much audio compression can evolve in 11 years... You expected no improvement between MPEG1 and MPEG4?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @03:39PM (#28411)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Always AC for me, thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @03:42PM (#28413)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Someone will fork it or "improve" aka Gnutella2 and then everybody will be frustrated and unhappy. Just go with a standard. There's no reason to be a GPL nazi
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @03:30PM (#28428)
|
|
|
|
|
While low bitrate AAC is better than low bitrate MP3, it is currently worst modern audio codec available - for example, see http://ff123.net/64test/results.html. Even Windows Media Audio 8 beats it.
11 years can mean nothing, when picking audio codec is political decision (ask Dolby...) and not based on technical merit.
And of course, true MP3 users use 'lame --alt-preset standard' or better.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ya man! that 10$ should include a new ipod each month too! we need to be paid back for all the years of buying cds at inflated prices! i want everything i got coming to me for 25cent a life time dammit! and that includes christina coming to my door on her knees and suc... oh right
dam the man
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @03:21PM (#28437)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why is this marked 'Funny'?
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
by
Anonymous Coward
on Tuesday March 04, @03:08PM (#28446)
|
|
|
|
|
| | |
