Apple to Launch Music Service? 877
discstickers writes "The San Jose Mercury News is running an article about an Apple music service that might be ready to launch next month. $.99 a song with the ability to burn to CD doesn't sound too bad."
At first glance... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:$1/song? I'll bite. (Score:5, Interesting)
Verified details? (Score:5, Interesting)
$.99 for a song?! (Score:3, Interesting)
For a typical 12 song CD, that would cost as much as the meatspace equivalent. And when I purchase it for $12 at Target, or where ever else, I get to keep a physical token.
I could, however, see using this for hard to find CD's, like the bad plus [thebadplus.com]. A dollar per song would be worth it when I can't find it in stores, or wait for Amazon to special order it.
But for everything else, if they charged $.25 per song, they couldn't upload them fast enough for me. As long as they're a dollar, I'll think long and hard about downloading anything.
Confllict with Apple Records? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:At first glance... (Score:5, Interesting)
I sure hope so. I buy pretty much 1-2 CDs a year now -- not because I pirate the songs, it's because I don't want to spend $15 on 2 songs. Being able to only buy the stuff I like could also allow independent labels to get some of the action. It would be great if an artist without a label could also hook into this service, so 5 million OS X users could have a shot at your song instead of the 30 people that go to the local bar.
New slogan: Listen different. :)
Two things would get me to use this. (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Catalog choices. If the selection is limited to Top 40 hits of the past ten years, no way. But if the choices are wide and deep (and maybe even out of print songs as was suggested earlier [janisian.com], and
3. Previews, allowing me to edit out the album filler. $.99 is cheap, and most albums only have a max of 4 good tracks.
Re:Still a little pricey. (Score:4, Interesting)
so for my 12 bucks (and providing my own media at $0.35, liner if i want it), i get the equivalent of your buying 5-6 discs.
hmmm. $12 vs. $60 doesn't sound so bad, does it?
i buy albums (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:99c / track? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Still a little pricey. (Score:2, Interesting)
I can't recall the last disc I bought that had more than a single song on it that I didn't like.
Too little, too late. (Score:4, Interesting)
I recently asked a non-geek who gave up buying CDs a few years back if he would be willing to pay about $0.15 for this kind of service. He said no. This is the same person who spend $60+ on a concert ticket.
The paying for recorded music meme is dying, and there's very little that can be done to prevent it. No law is enforcable when more than about 10% of the population are breaking it, and so they will have to either loosen copyright law, or not enforce it at all. Artists are worth money, and people will pay good money to see them. Recordings are just advertising, and most people object to paying for advertising.
Another article and AAC (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:99c / track? (Score:5, Interesting)
Is that because you might actually pay for something that is otherwise available for free if the quality of that product is offered at a price you consider worth spending on it? Gasp
Possible negative effects (Score:5, Interesting)
Well, then again maybe we'll not see a whole lot of change after all
On a completely different note, if you download an entire CD, they should make available a printable version of the cover and liner notes.
Re:At first glance... (Score:5, Interesting)
If I want a full album, it should be less expensive to go to the store and buy it. But I don't mind paying a slight premium for just the one song I want to hear.
Slashdot is full of cocksucking wankers who try to insist they want free speech when they really want free napster.
Still to expensive for me... (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure people say that you don't have to download all the songs...only the good ones...
Well...see, I like certain bands that are more than one-hit-wonders...I want to here the whole CD, not just that one Made for radio to be popular song most bands have.
I already believe CD's are way over-priced as is...I won't settle for downloading songs at $1, I want it down to
But this really isn't a problem for me since I don't own a Mac or an iPod
Not unreasonable! (Score:5, Interesting)
Secondly, it's common practice that when manufacturers break out single units that they charge more. Ever buy a Coke from a vending machine? How much did you pay for it, 65? And what is the cost per unit when you buy a 12 pack from Food Lion? 40/ea.? Nothing new here.
Third, there are real savings here. Yeah, if you want the entire album, you may be better off just buying it from the store. However, if you just want one or two songs, then you have saved yourself $10 or more. I can think of a LOT of songs from the past 30 years that I'd like to buy, but I don't care to get the whole album. There's a lot of one-hit wonders out there, but very few artists that can pack out an album with great material.
I think that the price is right. In fact, if I were doing it, I'd set the pricing as a range, from 75 for the "moldy oldies" to $1.25 for the latest stuff. Really, the only hitch I see so far is that they haven't answered the question of DRM. If there is DRM technology built into this, then yes, you're right that the cost is way too much. I wouldn't be willing to pay more than 25 for songs with DRM, if that.
If this business model can't keep consumers happy (Score:2, Interesting)
People are so reluctant to pay for music, but nobody seems to realize that if musicians don't make money, they can't make music. Studio time is not cheap. Equipment is not cheap. Manufacturing, distribution, advertising, all these things take money, but consumers want it free. Even a small-time musician like myself, for example
That's not the reason! (Score:4, Interesting)
Last time I looked, CD singles cost a substantial fraction of what albums cost, and I think that's why albums are popular. If we can reduce the transaction cost, as Apple has, then we can sell individual songs.
I like buying albums, though, because there are at least a few songs in a typical album that I will enjoy that I didn't hear before buying it. For instance, I bought Vanessa Daou's 'Make you Love' CD based on a couple of tracks, and my favourite song happens to be one I didn't hear before I bought the CD. I wonder how you could work around that problem. If people only hear one song on the radio, that's the song they'll buy.
I wonder if this might be a way to eliminate the truly stultifying "we only play three songs" commercial radio experience? It maybe become necessary, for marketing purposes, to play a wider variety!
D
Re:Two things would get me to use this. (Score:2, Interesting)
The only reason they make filler now is because they need to fill up the space.
sounds decent (Score:2, Interesting)
1) shn or flac is available
2) I can re-download the songs later for free (i'm always messing with my computer and I only have partial mp3 backups)
oh yeah, I don't own a mac or an ipod so apple would have to support windows/linux...
Too damn expensive... (Score:3, Interesting)
Plus you're buying intangibles, such as the pride of ownership. Yeah, I said pride. Owning a CD means you're more of a fan than somebody who has an mp3, even if they paid for it. CD collections are important things that impact a person's perceived personality and lifestyle. First thing I do when I visit a person's place for the first time is check out their CD collection. And yes, having a collection of all burns does negatively impact my perception of them.
This isn't to say I think it's necessarily a bad idea. I am a subscriber and an avid downloader from eMusic, and I don't feel their price is too expensive if you like what thy offer. My biggest complaints with the emusic model are the 128 kbit mp3s and the lack of major label catalogues, though they have a lot of great second tiers. If Apple does this right, they'll adopt a similar model, or at the very least offer volume discounts.
I don't think I'd ever buy a _single_ song on mp3, mostly because I feel a lot of work and effort goes into making an album into an artform that transcends simply slapping a bunch of tracks on a disc. I'd DOWNLOAD a single song, if it wer popular, to see if I'd like the album, but after I've already got it I'm certainly not going to pay for it. Catch-22.
Now maybe if they combined it with an "uncapturable" radio service, with the option to "purchase this song," they'd have a winner. Apple realizes the important of second string artists (as evidenced by the mp3s you get "gratis" on a new mac...fantastic stuff, without a Nelly or Britney track in site).
AAC, not OGG (Score:1, Interesting)
I will vote with my wallet. I'll support whoever comes out with an ogg-capable portable.
Re:Even Apple doesn't get it... (Score:2, Interesting)
Honestly, how many bands put out good CD's anymore? All I can think of is Godsmack, Linkin Park, and Bad Religion. Even on those Godsmack/LP CD's, there's 3-5 songs I don't particularly like.
It's not a bad idea IMO. Although I would prefer $.50 a song, but Apple's always overpriced
Re:Apple: Where's Windows version, or OS X for Int (Score:2, Interesting)
Why should Apple support people who don't even own their hardware? Should every company make their services available to everyone else, even at a loss of revenue?
I think not. Again, this is what you have access to with Apple hardware. You get what you pay for.
Re:$0.99 is still too high... (Score:3, Interesting)
-11 tracks @
-Alternately, the CD is 9.96 at my local Target.
-With tax, that's $10.65 (with CD cover, notes, lyrics, etc).
Can anyone then explain which is the better buy, especially after I pay for the DSL connection from home, and the blank CD?
Do you like every song on the CD? Every song? If so, then true, you won't benefit from this service. But if you only bought it for 1-2 songs, then you've just saved $8. And can you seriously include the cost of DSL/Cable in there? Would you not have the high-speed connection otherwise?
Re:At first glance... (Score:4, Interesting)
Mac Only = Guaranteed Failure (Score:2, Interesting)
Conflict with Apple Publishing Company? (Score:3, Interesting)
This is unreal (Score:2, Interesting)
Remember how everyone a year or two ago mentioned how the RIAA is behind the times and are playing catch up? Well.. seems they are still playing the game while other's are moving forward.
Slashdotters were right. It's a great idea. Our prophecy has been proven correct
Re:Apple Records, Inc. (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Even Apple doesn't get it... (Score:3, Interesting)
I should get into progressive rock again...one of DJ Venom's new mix CDs has 99 tracks on it. Ugh $98.01? Then again, you have to wonder what kind of music this service will offer...if they let Apple's marketing guys decide on it then it's sure to be stuff niether of us would want.
As for doomed to failure, plenty of people (suprisingly) use
Re:~3% Not Bad (Score:3, Interesting)
The question is, will the content mafia actually go for it? Many have already pointed out that the available info is suspiciously vague and inconsistent. (e.g., some stories are reporting "unlimited downloads for $10 mo. subscription, plus 99c per song if you want a burnable copy," other stories are just straight 99c per song, etc.) I doubt that in the end, Apple will be able to bring the content mafia around to the key user-friendliness points that are necessary to wean music lovers from P2P - most important among them, the ability to burn CDs.
So I'll add mine to the growing chorus of predictions: Yes, if Apple actually does this, it will be quite popular. But it will never actually happen, because the content mafia will be unable to shake their ingrained stomp-on-the-customer mindset. At the last minute, they'll all gang together and insist on some kind of booby-trapped format that will make the downloaded music useless, and Apple will go back to chanting "rip, mix, burn" to the P2P masses. Summary - this will be yet another "greatest opportunity an obsolete, copyright-abusing, customer-despising industry ever missed."
(and just for context, I own over 2,700 CDs, have owned and sold many more over the years, paid for them all, and at present have ripped about 3,000 high-quality MP3s onto my home server for use through portables and stereo. I don't share those files P2P, and have no inherent inclination to do so. But my new policy is - every time I buy a CD that turns out to be booby-trapped (turns out I have about 5 of them), I'll be cracking the encryption where possible and ripping the whole thing into a P2P share directory, plus 5 other CDs from that same label. When the content mafia started selling booby-trapped CDs that won't work on computers, and lobbying Washington to force more booby-traps into my computer, they made an enemy of one of their best customers. I hope they go down in flames, and artists start selling directly to the public. Maybe Apple can help facilitate that, after it realizes the content mafia is just dangling a fake carrot.)
Mac users == perfect market (Score:3, Interesting)
This is the perfect market to test this pay-to-play scheme
If this scheme doesn't work with Mac users, it won't work with a larger audience...
Comment removed (Score:2, Interesting)
Seems pretty straightforward to me... (Score:2, Interesting)
If, in fact, the reason (some) people don't like paying for CDs is because they have to pay for a bunch of songs they don't want in order to get a few they do, then this model works great.
If, in fact, the reason people don't like paying for CDs is because they want free stuff, then this idea won't go anywhere.
Of course, there are other things that could make this fail, and I'm sure everyone will be keeping a sharp eye out for them. But on the whole, this is a grand test of veracity.
Personally, I don't hold out a lot of hope. But I'd be delighted to be proven wrong.
-fred
filling file sharing needs. (Score:2, Interesting)
Phish (Score:4, Interesting)
the price is around $10-15 depending on which show you get and how many songs the download has in it. They average about 2-4 CD's per download set after it is decompressed from SHN and burned to audio CD.
Apparently, they plan on releasing previous shows and all future shows in this format. It's a nice change from the $25 each for the live albums they had put out previously.
Maybe some day, other bands will follow suit.
For those of you who just want one song, and are willing to pay MORE than it would cost at the CD store just so you only pay for one song, you should probably start listening to better music that isn't on the top 40. top 40 is just a measurement of how much the CD stores were force fed that particular album by the record label, it isn't a measurement of quality or popularity by any means.
If this new service has all the songs from all the labels, full length and in a reasonable format for both lossy and non-lossy compression (read: not encyrpted for DRM), it might be a decent thing. But at 99 cents a song, only lossy downloads, and probably not many artists signed up for it, add the fact that it will say DMCA and DRM all over the package, and I doubt this service will do any good.
C mp es ed M us c S cks (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Possible negative effects (Score:3, Interesting)
If the "album" requirement went away, artists might be able to release smaller quantities of music more often. This might actually help the creative process.
It's possible a lot of the music on an album is crap because the creative juices started drying up the 3rd or 4th song. But the artists are trapped until they come up with an entire album full of songs.
If they only released stuff they thought was good and immediately got money for it, some things might be different. They might enjoy writing songs more. It could break things up.
This could also help new artists - they would just have to release one song to get cash flow going and start their career.