iTunes Music Store sells 275,000 Tracks in 18 Hours 1194
physicsnerd writes "According to this article on Billboard.com, Apple's iTunes Music store sold 275,000 tracks in its first 18 hours of operation. The Register.com estimates that this netted Apple just under $100,000! Not too bad for a 99 cents store."
Impressive considering the connection problems people were having. Remains to be seen what usage will be after the hype settles down.
But how many more Macs will get sold? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:But how many more Macs will get sold? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But how many more Macs will get sold? (Score:5, Interesting)
Just look at the iPod (Score:4, Insightful)
Why? While it would be nice to sell a Mac, Apple realizes that the iPod will only go so far to sell a Mac, and they might as well make more money on iPods from people that will never, EVER buy a Mac but might buy an iPod. (Like myself. Well, I might buy a Mac, but never a new one, and that doesn't make Apple money.)
Re:Just look at the iPod (Score:4, Insightful)
Though now you can actually switch a PC iPod to a Mac version and vice versa by playing around with the firmware upgrades.
Re:But how many more Macs will get sold? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:But how many more Macs will get sold? (Score:4, Interesting)
They have a digital distribution system for all tracks ever published , and no need for shelf space. (Or at least all tracks they can get hold of, more than a store can hold.)
Stick a kiosk in the middle of the mall with an iMac, a CDR loader and a CreditCard swipe. You'd put all those music stores out of business.
A lot of curiosity (Score:5, Interesting)
They need to sort out international licensing too, This could be huge in the UK where albums frequently cost as much in pounds as they do in dollars here in the US.
Re:A lot of curiosity (Score:5, Informative)
Bring your burner down the the library and copy away! Have a "burn-my-discs" party and invite all your friends!
Meanwhile.... (Score:4, Funny)
iTunes for Windows (Score:5, Informative)
I keep hearing great things about iTunes too, in that it's apparantly quite a bit better than most music database software. Personally I'm still looking for a good music db/organizing program for either Linux (preferred) or Windows (thank you samba) - I'm in the process of ripping ~1000 CDs to high bitrate MP3 for my TiVo and am in desperate need for some cataloging and playlist creation tools. From what little I've heard iTunes would fit the bill and do it well... but obviously I still need to find something until then (suggestions welcome).
Re:iTunes for Windows (Score:5, Informative)
It integrats with xmms, noatun. Can build playlists, extendable via plug-ins.
And Did i mention, extremly fast and accurate search engine. This is the feature that's most imp. to me. Just start tying in the search window, and it does an incremental search.
Exactly... (Score:3, Funny)
Which means that if a client was availible for 100% of the market, perhaps they could have sold 275,000*20 = 5,500,000 tracks in 18 hours. It's math even RIAA monkeys could figure out.
Kjella
RIAA math.... (Score:4, Funny)
GNUArt (Score:3, Interesting)
Besides p2p which is illicit, they are indeed selling professional stuff whereas GNUArtists are sharing their own amateurish but "Open-sourced" stuff ; once people will realize they have to pay 7425$ to fill their new iPod, they'll also want to visit Free galleries such as ours.
So, we can only benefit from this "competition".
Thanks, Herr Jobs !
A nice looking service (Score:5, Interesting)
I may now have to buy an Apple just to use the service. It's easy to use, has a wide selection, and is everything a music service should be. Only time will tell if they have the pricing right.
I don't know what took the music industry so long.
Re:A nice looking service (Score:4, Funny)
Hrm...CDs cost $13-$17 each, computers cost hundreds...you may want to reexamine your economic model.
--trb
Re:A nice looking service (Score:5, Funny)
You've got that right. After I purchased a couple of individual songs yesterday, I checked the "don't ask me again" box that pops-up after you click the Buy button to remind you that you actually will be charged. I then purchased a couple of full albums, which was so quick and easy without that pop-up reminder that I thought to myself just how dangerous this could be to my wallet.
Re:A nice looking service (Score:5, Insightful)
How about D) He actually likes the idea of some money going to the artists, rather than stealing the music.
Re:If only that were true (Score:4, Interesting)
OK, so unless something has really changed, the RIAA gets nothing. Some music companies get something. And this, I think, is the key point: the labels that have the most to gain from this are the small ones that you are less likely to find on your local store's shelves. And, moving beyond that, a viable buy-online system *not* run by a label will make it far more likely that unsigned acts can get a better deal.
And I really do think this will help bands in a major way. While you're listening to the song you'll probably buy, you can't help look at the box on the right that says "people who bought 'Ana Ng' also bought 'Funky Périphérique' by Les Sans Culottes". [Disclaimer: neither song is currently available at the site although they certainly should be.] To be completely honest, a working online music buying system will really be the end of the big labels as we know them.
Quickly != P2P (Score:5, Insightful)
Even aside from your odd sentence structure, the word "quickly" must mean something really different to you than it does to the rest of us. Maybe it means "slow and frustrating"?
You mention P2P stuff, but you don't seem to have looked for anything less common than Britney's latest hit... I had a little Limewire phase, but dang it if I have the time to hassle with that.
But I agree, the parent was a Pollyanna post. I also gotta notice that a lot of people bought music on this service fast. Maybe you should be wondering why instead of flaming away, you know? Hint: the answer is not "Those Mac people will believe anything 'cause they're zealots." Maybe it has something to do with Apple seriously thinking about how to hit the sweet spot so they could satisfy the customers and the labels. You think?
Re:Quickly != P2P (Score:4, Insightful)
Cable modem, not sure what the average speed would be. It's not bad -- streaming video is only a problem for the servers on the other end.
Stupid example: I have 9-year-old twins who had to do a nature exhibit for a science fair. They chose to do this elaborate thing about muskrats -- actually showed a lot of initiative. Long story short, along the way they found out about the song "Muskrat Love" -- oh, man, my head hurts. So, they wanted "Muskrat Love" to burn to a CD and play in front of their exhibit as a little joke.
We go out in the P2P world, looking for "Muskrat Love." I looked for it several times over the few days before the science fair thing. Saw it among the search results a few times. Got a lot of busy signals, one extremely slow aborted download (despite a supposed T1 connection on their end), and disappointment. No novelty music for their exhibit, sorry.
Maybe that's a good thing -- maybe the world doesn't need more Captain and Tenille hits. But I'd have gladly paid the buck, and the song is available on Apple's store.
For some people it's worth a buck to get what they want in a fast and convenient way. For a lot of people, a service like this is worth it next to the hassles of P2P -- and maybe if you were to be a little curious about that, you could figure out why.
Re:Everything a music service should be ? (Score:5, Insightful)
Concidering everyone else is still stuck on MP3, which is not open at all (and is even more expensive than AAC to use) you can hardly fault apple for this.
Their option is no worse than what anyone else is using.
Its amazing, apple offers many features that everyone conciders great, and on this one feature they do basically the same thing (use a closed format like everyone else), and thats the feature that gets bashed.
MP3 is closed, and requires licencing to make encoders or decoders.
redbook (audio CDs) are also closed format and requires licencing (Though i dont know about the costs for that one)
AAC is closed.
Seems to be you should be bitching at EVERYONE that isnt the 0.01% of the population that uses a computer and OGG, not just apple.
it was DRM not compatibility (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A nice looking service (Score:5, Insightful)
I fully plan on buying a Mac for my next system. I now can safely say I have no reason to stick to Linux, because I can still operate just as well using the BSD tools. I'm not a desktop programmer, so I don't care about that.
This is just one more perk to owning a Mac, and I'm fully ready to start becoming a full-fledged, card carrying Mac whore.
The only issue I have with Macs is their cost, but I think I can cope by having a pretty damn cool, commercially supported, end-user Unix system.
Re:A nice looking service (Score:5, Informative)
I'm glad to see I'm not the only one. After being a diehard linux fanatic (yes fanatic) for the last 8 years, I've started the switch to OS X.
Yes, it rocks. Yes, Quicken is far simpler than Gnucash. Yes, Warcraft 3 is better than Kohan. Having to learn objective-C is a little bit of a downer, but I guess you can't have everything.
As for the cost, I don't really see it. My powerbook was three grand which is comparable for the same setup in an Intel/AMD world. A 17" flat panel developer worstation is the same price at both Apple and Dell. Yes, you can get Intel boxes cheaper, but the similar components seem to cost the same whether it's from Apple, Dell, or IBM.
I'm not quite ready to trade in my servers for Apples yet, but my desktops are next on the list to replace. I'm looking into the Oracle developers release for Jaguar..not bad. However, I'll stick to linux there for now.
OS X seems to be the perfect desktop blend of unix and open source functionality with a far superior user interface. When I was in college and then fresh out, tweaking linux to work with the latest hardware was fun and all, but I'm over it now. Things like this music service are just icing on the cake...
Re:A nice looking service (Score:5, Informative)
You can use Java with the Cocoa frameworks too.
Re:A nice looking service (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has several products in the sub-$1000 range.
Re:A nice looking service (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Apple and security (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple is doing nothing that Amazon hasn't been doing for years. There are no hooks in iTunes that allow scripted purchses, so I don't think you have anything to worry about.
eMusic ups the ante (Score:5, Informative)
eMusic has increased the quality of songs available on their website from 128kbps to 192kbps VBR. The annoucement is available here [mp3.com].
Currently, this is the only pay and play option available to iPod users without a Mac! For those that don't already know, eMusic offers all-you-can-eat downloads, song previews and has recently also added message boards [emusic.com] for each genre.
This is pure, DRM-free music so sign up and support the business model! It is hard to find music so I hope they add streaming radio and collaborative filtering in the near future to make it easier.
Don't wait for the non-Mac Apple music store - This [theregister.co.uk] article in the Register points out that only two labels have signed up for the Windows version of the music store.
Adi Gadwale.
Re:eMusic ups the ante (Score:4, Informative)
Re:eMusic ups the ante (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:eMusic ups the ante (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't wait for the non-Mac Apple music store - This [theregister.co.uk] article in the Register points out that only two labels have signed up for the Windows version of the music store...
... so far. Surely they're waiting to see how successful the current version is. Also the Windows one probably won't be out for awhile, so there's still time for everyone to get on board. (And I predict they will).
Re:eMusic ups the ante - FALLS ON ITS FACE (Score:4, Interesting)
As of today, they are forcing users to use their own download manager to get songs. Problem is, it's a completely closed app that must be installed as root, and even if you do install it, it doesn't work. I don't mind paying a fee for music I download - but I do want to be able to download it! I'll gladly go back when the abandon this BS.
$.99 versus $1.00 (Score:3, Interesting)
Do any shopping lately? (Score:5, Informative)
$9.99, $99.99, $17,995 (for say, a car). We've had this as long as I've been alive, and from looking into older catalogues it's been standard practice in the retail industry since at least the 60's. EVERYONE rounds their price down slightly, so it appears cheaper when you quickly look at it. In fact, in the past decade many stores have successfully gone to a '95 cents' model, where $9.95 somehow looks more appealing to the shopper than $9.99. A whopping 4 cents less profit, but an amazing increase in sales.
Psychologists have known about this for eons, and marketing types do this routinely. 99 cents just looks cheaper than an even buck, to most people. In fact, it's so bad that if I'm in a store with someone, see something for say $395, I'll comment "wow, four hundred dollars for that?". Almost invariably, the person I'm with will say "no, it's only three ninety five". People are so used to this that rounding up prices just seems wrong, somehow.
This predates most psychology and advertising (Score:4, Interesting)
The practice originally started in retail stores with cash registers. Clerks tended to ignore the new-fangled machines for purchases in whole numbers, so the numbers were changed to persuade the clerks to use the cash register to get the penny change. It didn't become popular in other forms of retail, such as catalog purchases, until about 50 years later.
This was pointed out by Bill Bryson in one of his books; I think it was Made in America.
Re:Do any shopping lately? (Score:4, Funny)
You order from a menu? And it has prices? Peasant!
Yikes! (Score:3, Funny)
Why so many downloads? I thought Macs had Gnutella clients.
yeah I'm joking
Optional DRM (Score:3, Interesting)
While I don't really like DRM, I can see where the music industry is coming from on the topic, and I suspect that they were the ones behind the whole thing.
What I'd like to see is a per-song DRM, where the artists or labels get to choose whether the song can be freely copied after purchase or not. Perhaps that, coupled with a price change for non-DRM-enforced songs, would push the rest of the industry in the direction we all want it to go. I'm sure the indie crowd would get behind the idea, as well as the brighter label execs and artists.
Internet Crack (Score:5, Insightful)
Once they roll this out for Windows or Linux, I'll have a hard time fighting the impulses. It's only 99 cents, right? Cheap! 15 or 20 tracks later, I'll realize I just dropped $20.
Apple may very well succeed because of the low investment necessary... and because at only 99 cents, the instant gratification may get addictive. Smart move on their part.
Re:Internet Crack (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, but the difference is that now you've dropped twenty bucks to get the three or four good tracks from each of a half dozen different albums, rather than paying for all the filler on one CD. Not only that, you didn't have to get in your car and drive to the mall.
You got value for your money, and you saved the planet. Feel warm and fuzzy? Reward yourself with another couple of songs. ;)
Re:Internet Crack (Score:5, Interesting)
Apple may very well succeed because of the low investment necessary...
Not that low of an investmet at all, actually. According to this interview [time.com]:
TIME: Can you say anything about [Music Store's] development costs or Apple's investment?
Jobs: I had somebody comment today, "Now that you have introduced your store, do you expect a lot others?" And I guess our answer is no. This is really hard. Over the last several years we've created an infrastructure to pump oceans of bits out in the world for movie trailers and stuff, and that's tens of millions of dollars for server farms and networking farms ? it's huge ? and we've already got that in place. And to have millions of transactions, and to get our online store all tied into SAP and have the auditors bless it, that's tens of millions of dollars. We have one-click shopping, only us and Amazon have that, and then to make a jukebox ? how much does it cost to make iTunes and make it popular? A lot! But we've got that. And then iPod, if you want to make an iPod, what does that cost? Well, nobody has done it but us, people have tried, but they haven't even come close. That's a lot of money. So we've already made these investments and we can leverage them. And then we've invested more on top of that to make a store. But to recreate this, it's tens of millions of dollars and years. That's why I don't think this is going to be so easy to copy.
Well... (Score:5, Interesting)
I expect that within a year, there will be MUG meets where the topic of discussion will be "Music Store Addiction:How I lost my wife and house downloading music".
Just wait till Apple releases iTunes for Windows [monster.com], so you PC users can join in the fun.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We have a catch 22 (Score:5, Funny)
That makes sense, I guess, seeing as how both the iTunes Music Store and the Apple Store sell things.
Kind of a lame joke, I suppose. But I can see how it will come in handy. Like, for example, I can write this:
¥ou're £ame!
See? It's fun to use punctuation as words!
Apple prolly doesn't make as much as El Reg claims (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple gets $.99 for singles, but less for albums (I bought a 20 track album fo $9.99)... and I'm sure that they need to pay the credit card companies some percentage, and then pay Akamai for the servers, and Amazon for the one-click patents... so I doubt they make more that 15 cents per song on average... but that's still a good margin... but more like $40,000 than El Reg's $100,000 estimate
It's enough to make you want to buy a mac... (Score:5, Interesting)
It might make sense to consider something like a 17" iMac as purely a home-entertainment component. Sure, it's $1800, but you'll probably eventually spend more than that at the iMusic store
Anyone want to bet on how many days go by before someone has reverse-engineered the MaciMusic store protocol and written an app that masquerades as iTunes-on-a-Mac thus allowing Linux and Windows users to purchase music through Apple?
G.
Re:It's enough to make you want to buy a mac... (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, it will keep up (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, it will keep up (Score:5, Funny)
Does it seamlessly integrate into the Linux based MP3 player in my car? Does it seamlessly integrate into my Sun Workstation? Can I burn the audio to CD? Is it worth $1?
Yes it's really that cool. (Score:5, Interesting)
If I was allowed to buy, I probably would have purchased 10-20 songs by now.
Yes I have Acquisition (a really sweet Mac Gnutella client), and I have the usual assortment of piracy^H^H^H^H^H^H file sharing tools for Windows, but in that sea of file searching it's easy to lose one's vision of a really nice way to download music.
For example: I figured I would try to find some old Tears For Fears music. In the search field I just typed "Tears For Fears". In less than 5 seconds I had a track listing of 6 different Tears For Fears albums, including tracks I never knew they had done (did you know they covered Bowie's 'Ashes to Ashes'?)
Let me say this another way to better illustrate just how cool it is: it was EVERY ALBUM TRACK, listed only ONCE. I pick the song and I get it, really fast. With a file sharing app I pick from a list of thousands of different rips of the same songs, all of varying quality. I hit download, and maybe the host is slow. Maybe I get a "swarmed" download that won't be reconstructed properly when it gets here. Maybe it won't even really be the song I think I'm downloading. Maybe I get "remotely queued". Maybe it looked like a good bitrate before I downloaded it, but it turned out to be a crappy rip.
On the Apple service I hit "play" and I'm previewing the music in real time. I hit "download" and I've got the actual song I want, with no glitches.
Seriously - with these advantages, plus the fact that it is actually legal, I can't see why people wouldn't shell out a buck a song.
Like everybody else I hope Apple creates an indy section, maybe even something iDisk-based so that
My Own 30 Second Take (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't know about the connection errors others were reporting, as I didn't have any. I already own an iPod, so the AAC/MP3 issue isn't one for me as it is for some others making posts here. I also had no problem setting up my account - I had an account when I bought my first Mac a year ago, and just used that.
The biggest thing I noticed when I started it up was the ability to finally buy the 1 song off of a track I wanted. Bob Dylan is OK, but I just wanted "Growing in the Wind". That's it. A buck later, and I had it. Another 2 or 3 minutes later, it was on.
From there, I wound up spending $20 on the service. No problems, except that it didn't have everything I wanted (I'm still trying to get Queen's Bohemien Rhapsody). But I spend more in 2 days than I've spent on music in 1 year.
Is is perfect? No, but you don't need an iPod - you can burn the music to a regular audio CD if you like, and either rerip this to MP3 (with a loss of quality), or just play the CD in a regular player.
But so far, it's 95% of what I've wanted with online music sales. Hopefully they'll get more music on there, maybe even some game/anime music (as that stuff is *way* more expensive than it needs to be), and more players out there will start support AAC. I'm not worried about the latter - since its part of the MPEG-4 standard, that should only be a matter of time and a firmware upgrade later.
Selling out (Score:5, Interesting)
Anyway, I got this in my email box this morning from Michael Robertson of Lindows and former CEO of MP3.COM. I find it coincidental after this Interview [slashdot.org] session, and I find his comments about Apple selling out intersting. The text of his (mass) email follows:
Most of you probably know that my former company was MP3.com, which was instrumental in bringing digital music to the masses. One of the things we stood for at MP3.com was the consumer's rights over their own music collection. Our belief was that consumers who purchase their music should have the ability to convert that music into a format they like and put the music on any device they desire. We even tried to get a law pushed through congress affirming this (we did not succeed in that attempt). The last five years have seen multiple attempts to limit consumers' rights via DRM (digital rights management) technology. These are schemes which add "big brother" restrictions to what you can do with your own music library.
It's no secret that the major record labels want to embed restrictions into music and force those restrictions onto customers, but recently they've been getting help from some surprising sources -- namely Microsoft and Apple. While I was the CEO of MP3.com, Microsoft repeatedly offered millions of dollars to us to convert the library of tunes at MP3.com from consumer friendly MP3 to Windows Media format. We always politely declined. Microsoft's strategy was that if they could get the whole world to convert to Windows Media, then they could get the record labels to pay them huge sums to limit how consumers could listen to their music. Thank goodness that hasn't happened yet, because having your music "expire", disappear, degrade in quality, not be able to burn to CD or load onto your devices is an awful consumer experience.
Microsoft is at it again though, trying to use their money and dominance in the OS to get a foothold in music by selling out consumers. Recently, news.com reported that Microsoft is cozzying up to the leading CD restriction company. This means we're one baby step away from all music CDs ONLY playing on Microsoft Windows XP. Imagine having to buy a copy of Microsoft Windows XP for every music device just so you can listen to your own music, and even then being restricted from making a compilation CD for your car!
Apple has understandably succumbed to pressure from the music labels to bolster their chances of securing music licenses for their iTunes music service by trampling music buyers rights. The 2.4% of the world which use Macs will find out that all the music in their newly announced service is wrapped in a digital padlock. This gives Apple (or the record labels) the ability to control what a buyer can do with the music they purchase. The user doesn't get to pick which computer they can listen to their music on (Macs only). Forget any device that isn't an iPod, like my current MP3 player (tiny, no cables, rechargeable battery - nice). Don't even think about burning a disc full of 100 MP3s to play in your DVD player. (Have you noticed virtually all new DVD players will play MP3 files?)
Straight ahead of us is a world where CDs will only play in Microsoft Windows XP computers. Digital songs you buy online will only work with Apple software or an Apple sanctioned portable player. You will not be able to burn any of the music you've purchased onto an MP3 CD to pop into your DVD player. That's a sad and expensive world for music fans because labels and large corporations will extort money from their users who just want to enjoy their own music.
When you pay for music, you should be able to enjoy that music in all the different and convenient ways available. I'm still a big believer in the value of MP3 because it ensures that the
Re:Selling out (Score:5, Insightful)
Without DRM, you can't restrict free trading of files on P2P networks. What will prevent all those AAC files from iTunes appear on Kazaa... the business model will fail that day.
Apple has taken a sensible approach to DRM. They allow you to burn the AAC files to CDs as data files and as audio CDs. The latter will play in ALL players.
Now Michael Robertson (of mp3.com) is bitching that users won't be able to play it in MP3 players... fine enough. MP3 SHOULD CEASE to exist.
Better formats like Vorbis are not picking up just because every Joe is making MP3 players.
Apple, for one, will succeed in doing one thing - making those Joes realise that there is something *else* than MP3 too!! When the HW mfgrs will realise that, they will look for major alternatives... sure 8 out of 10 will go to AAC/WMA/RM route, but 2 will also do Vorbis, and there it will break the ice.
Today every DVD/CD player comes with MP3 support just because they are oblivious to the fact that something else exists... they just don't want to go to desk and design a decoder chip for anything else... Apple is poking them and shouting "wake up"... This is a Good Thing (TM). In the process if Apple makes some money... well good for them. Things have to start somewhere.
Finally... get over with that "mp3 is word of god" thing. Sure you don't want to give up your existing player... but some time down the line when you'd be seaching for your next player... you'd definitely want a choice besides MP3.
Re:Selling out (Score:5, Insightful)
He has clearly mentioned the disadvantages of the service (as have many others). However, he completely failed to mention the major disadvantages of his own failed service, and how the Apple service attempts to form a balance.
Clearly he has not learned from his own failures. Not a good businessman.
There are consumers and there are copyright owners. The goal is to be fair and reasonable to both. MP3.com failed in this mission. Napster also failed. Gnutella fails.
We all see the advantages and disadvantages. Now it's time to see if this is merely a step (or a leap) closer to a workable solution.
"Forget any device that isn't an iPod" (Score:5, Funny)
I am sure he will issue a correction and an apology as soon as this fact reaches him.
Meanwhile (Score:4, Informative)
PressPlay [pressplay.com] is already on the same path using Microsoft DRM.
Widely varying reports of quality (Score:5, Informative)
Apple states that the 128-kbps AAC "combines sound quality that rivals CDs with smaller files sizes (compared to MP3s)." Someone reported that Apple said during the original PR event that some of the tracks actually sound better than the original CD tracks because they went back to the original master recordings to encode. Ok, I'll buy all that. AAC offers better compression and higher quality at lower bitrates. Fine. If really true, I might even consider re-ripping my CDs to AAC and saving some disk space. IF it's really that good. But as I said, the proof is in whether I can hear a difference. All other technical mumbo jumbo is meaningless.
I previewed a number of songs the first night it was operational and was fairly impressed. Definitely much better than 128 kbps MP3. Then I put my headphones on and started to notice possible compression artifacts. I wasn't sure if I was imagining these or whether I was really hearing something, so I started listening to the previews of tracks I already have, ripped from original CDs. I compared the preview tracks to my MP3 copies, which are high quality VBR averaging a little over 200 kbps. I went back and forth between the store preview and my copy numerous times, and always felt like I heard compression artifacts in the previews. I wanted to setup a true blind test to make absolutely sure I wasn't being biased by knowing which sample was which, but I haven't had time this week.
Apple's Discussion board [apple.com] for iTunes has numerous topics debating the quality of the AACs. Some people swear that the previews are lower quality, and what you get when you buy is perfect. Others say just the opposite. Apple itself says of the previews, "You'll hear a 30-second sample that rivals CD quality sound." Doesn't exactly say that the preview is the same quality as the purchased track, but kind of implies it too. MacInTouch has tons of reader reports [macintouch.com] that are interesting as well.
I suppose ultimately I'll have to spend $0.99 and see for myself what happens. I'll try to choose a track that I have, and whose preview sounds pretty bad. If the purchased track is indistinguishable from the CD, I'll be a happy camper. But if it's the same as the preview, I'll be severely disappointed. I'd so love for this to take off, as it is the future of music buying. I think Apple has done a good job of balancing consumers' fair use rights with the rights of the copyright holders. If this flops, it'll be more fodder for the RIAA to push legislation through that protects their dying business model. (sorry, had to get political for a second there)
But mainly I'm excited about the prospect of buying music this way. Hopefully in the near future, they'll have liner notes, etc available as a PDF when you buy. And lots more artists, including any that are out of print. That would so rock. So many CDs on my wishlist now are so hard to find, and I'd buy them in a heartbeat if they were available this way now. So please, Apple, don't let us down on quality! And if the quality really is subpar, let's all send them feedback (link at the music store main page) until they listen!
Independents (Score:5, Informative)
The other big news yesterday was that Steve Jobs confirmed that Apple is going to start putting up independent music once they get all of the big label music they negotiated for uploaded:
from: http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,4 48048,00.html
Question to AMS Users (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Question to AMS Users (Score:4, Insightful)
OTOH, if you buy a CD in meatspace and break it, you're similarly out of luck.
Stye (Score:5, Insightful)
Interestingly enough, this could VERY easily be viewed as a Very Good Thing by all the IP-based companies. Proof-positive that people will climb over each other to buy your product if you just let them but they'll obtain it by other means if you don't.
But will the RIAA & company view it as such? No. Why? Because what they want more than revenue is control. Because control, in their current model, is equivalent to a sustainable business. When they start loosing control of how the product can get to market, when they lose their status as the so-called gatekeepers of IP whose ass you must lick to be heard, they're screwed. You can't abuse people when you aren't the only game in town.
Then it becomes a buyer's market. Which, trust me, is the last thing these people want.
use it before you criticize it (Score:4, Insightful)
A possible addition (Score:5, Interesting)
Much like the Software-2-Go kiosks [slashdot.org] in stores, there could be a Music-2-Go kiosk. You would create or sign into your AMS account and purchase music. An extra $2.50 or so for the on-site burning, cover art, etc. I don't think it could do the booklets, but maybe...
Of course, you would also be able to burn music you already own. You fly across the country, stop into a music store, burn a CD for $2.50, and pop it into your rental car's CD player.
It's an interesting thought.
digging further into statistics (Score:4, Interesting)
This will go the way of iPod (Score:5, Interesting)
I think it's fair to say that "Slashdot wisdom" concerning these things isn't exactly a great indicator of success or failure. Everyone here on slashdot either has an iPod or wants one. Yeah, even if it doesn't run Linux.
Slashdot readership as a whole may contain a lot of knowledge and wisdom. That's why I come here. But it certainly doesn't have a finger on the pulse of consumer-oriented technology.
And for the record, I think Apple has gotten this thing about 95% right straight out of the gate. Clearly it is going to be the model for how this is done for everyone else. Kudos to them. They deserve it.
A very good use for the iTunes Store (Score:4, Funny)
Is that the 30 second song "sample" is just viral enough to infect co-workers.
Someone in your office you don't like? Give them 30 seconds of Air Supply. They'll be humming "Making Love out of Nothing At All" ALL DAY LONG!!!
Tee-Hee
In Related News... (Score:4, Funny)
In the past 18 hours, 275,000 new AAC encoded songs appears on Kazaa.
AAC Security question (Score:4, Interesting)
not sensible DRM (Score:4, Insightful)
DRM is not sensible if ties you to one vendor or platform. You can only play purchased files on Apple computers and Apple players, unless you want to burn CD's. This is only a sensible approach if you live in a world where all your computing products and mp3 devices are made by Apple, for most of us this is not the case.
Re:not sensible DRM (Score:5, Informative)
This will be coming to the Wintel world by year's end. You can burn your stuff to as many CD's as you'd like... just change your playlist every ten burns.
Burn 'em to CD re-rip as whatever freaking format you'd like... hell, run it off to tape if you want! Copy all of your music over to a data DVD, back it up to DAT or DLT. You have a ton of options with all of this. You aren't roped into the Apple proprietary system.
This will all be coming to Windows soon enough. Be patient. We Mac users have to be patient all the time, so now it's your turn to wait!
p.s. Several readers have posted that they have downloaded a song a second time and have not been charged.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Interesting)
> rid of those pesky cashiers. Why don't they just trust me to leave an
> appropriate amount of money for the goods that I walk out of the store with??
> They are treating me like a criminal. Wah.
Sad part is, even thou the above was posted by an AC and modded down to -1 flamebait, he's 100% right and not flaming anything at all.
Those moderators should be ashamed.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Interesting)
I applaud Apple's effort to be reasonable, but DRM is still unacceptable. I wrote a short essay on why I believe this; it's on my site [overcode.net].
Furthermore, sharing is a fundamental part of experiencing music. I believe that noncommercial song swapping should be fully protected under copyright law.
-John
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Insightful)
AAC sounds fantastic. I usually rip MP3s at 160-192 kbps, using VBR. This makes very nice sounding MP3 files, and I can't tell the difference between the MP3 and the CD. The only draw back, is that they are kinda large, but with a 20 Gig iPod, I'm not too worried.
AAC actually sounds as good, as far as I can tell, as my MP3s do. So all this talk of "low bit-rate" and "DRM-sUckS!" is ridiculous. If you don't like the DRM, burn a CD (or 10 before changing the playlist), and re-import it as MP3s and never think about AAC again.
That logic seems to be at the crux... (Score:5, Insightful)
Somehow, if people don't make purchasing something as convenient and cheap as you expect it to be, you have the right to take it.
In the case of utilities with true monopoly on the electric power coming into your home doubling their price in a two month period, I could see the justification in say altering your meter to cut the price back down to where it was. This wouldn't seem unjust to me.
In the case of charging too much for music (not food, not power, not water, CDs), and not making it available online with massive bandwidth and high-bit rates for cheap, I can't really see how this entitles you to buy one copy and distribute it to 400 people, any more than waiting five minutes at the QuickMart entitles you to a free magazine.
How does this work?
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Future looks bright (Score:4, Interesting)
Think about it.
Under the current system, they press and market the CDs. The retail chains sell them. The retail chains pay for the whole infrastructure for shipping and whatnot.
Aside from production and marketing, there is no overhead for the producers.
If the producers had to set up their own 'online retail' outlets, there would be a massive amount of overhead for servers, software, bandwidth and staff. It would cost them more to distribute the music this way.
Third parties would have to create the e-biz infrastructure, shoulder that overhead, and pay the producers their due royalties. This is what Apple did, and there's nothing stopping someone else from doing it except cash and lack of customer base.
The RIAA/MPAA dont give a shit either way, so long as they aren't losing money on the deal.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Insightful)
this is funny AND true. ever stepped into the huge conglomerate music stores of late? same music they were selling last year, just with different band names, and song titles......
The state of music today would certainly allow Indy to take over, just because of creativity alone. Apple would be wise to catalog Indy music. (and those profits of 100,000 would be ten fold.)
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Insightful)
If Apple starts selling Indy music, then they can either do it at a lower price, higher profit, or both. Without the record labels in the way, set Apple's cut at $.33, the musicians' cut at another $.33, and that makes for a $.66 song. Pretty good competition for the RIAA, really.
Of course, then they'd have $6.66 albums.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:4, Interesting)
I mean, at 20Euro per CD with 10 songs, their offering is very competitive. DRM? Don't care too much: I can burn it on CD and it's usually from a CD that I listen to music. I also have a MiniDisc player/recorder and the DRM has only slapped me in the face once, when a musician friend of mine gave me a CD-R-Audio.
Good idea recommeniding the indy bands... I think I'm going to do that.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Interesting)
Record companies are never going to allow an online music store like this unless there's some semblance of rights management.
Also, we've been over this 47,000 times now, but the DRM imposed on the Apple store tracks isn't restrictive to a user at all. The only time it gets in the way is if you want to do something less than legal with your purchased goods.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:3, Insightful)
And even then it is extremely simple to circumvent. I think the lower quality audio and small selection are the only things really holding this back. I think Apple worked out the perfect amount of DRM for this type of service.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Insightful)
I guess I'll give the AMS a try, though I probably won't like it, because I'll feel like I'm paying for something I won't actually own, and I'm used to at least feeling like I "own" the music I buy. I hate the fact that my computer is actively working against me to do what I want to do. It's not that I can't do it because the technology doesn't exist or something...the computer is actively working against me. My own computer!
DRM "technology" turns computing on its head. Always in the past, I buy new hardware or software so it'll let me do new things. Now, here's "new technology" to prevent me from doing things I could do before! No thank you.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Insightful)
This is like bitching that BMG offers a music service through which you can only buy CDs, and you have a tape player. Even though it really sucks that you just bought a tape player, it's not the actions of DRM that are keeping the music from working on it.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Informative)
From the TIME interview [time.com]:
So this should put to rest the people claiming that indies would never be allowed because the majors wouldn't allow it...
Independents (Score:3, Informative)
TIME: What about independent labels? Will they follow suit?
Jobs: Yes. They've already been calling us like crazy. We've had to put most of them off until after launch just because the big five have most of the music, and we only had so many hours in the day. But now we're really going to have time to focus on a lot of the independents and that will be really great.
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Insightful)
Point by point:
In a related article, recent studies show that Apple zealots will buy just about anything as long as it has a candy colored apple logo and some brushed metal interface.
Candy coloring is far less likely to have an effect on an Apple zealot, who probably knows something about technology, than on a technophobe who bases his/her buying decision largely on the appearance of a product. And, incidentally, the brushed metal interface has been almost universally bashed from day 1. There's even a utility to change the brushed-metal interface of Safari to Aqua [versiontracker.com].
As much as I'm against the DRM and the low bitrate itunes uses,...
Apple hates DRM. Clearly, considering you can burn as many CDs as you want, use as many iPods as you want, and transfer the song files between up to three Macs, not to mention play them on any computer you wish over a network or the Internet, the little bit of DRM Apple included in these files is there to pacify the RIAA. I'm surprised they managed to get the Big Five on board with as little DRM as this, frankly.
And the low bitrate comment is absurd. These are AACs, not MP3s. The quality of a 128 kbps AAC rivals [macrumors.com] that of the original uncompressed audio source.
Wow! Music with practically no DRM, delivered cheaper than CDs in a digital format over the Internet, and compressed at a high enough bitrate to be of better quality than CDs...and you actually think this is a good thing? What low standards!
The Indy music idea, on the other hand, is a good one...and it will probably happen [time.com].
Re:Future looks bright (Score:5, Insightful)
I admit it: I am an Apple zealot. I think the fact that my family owns seven Macintoshes is enough to support this in the face of everything I'm about to say.
Current Macs are slow. Mac OS X is not a perfect operating system: it crashes; there are parts of the interface I don't like; the brushed metal interface, while okay in and of itself, clashes with Aqua and makes for an inconsistent experience; the list goes on. iTunes could be better: it often loses track of my some of my song files, it has a limit on my library size which I will probably hit this summer, and so on. My 15" Studio Display is very unsatisfactory, having a resolution of only 1024x768. I had a problem recently that disabled a certain feature because I removed an Ethernet card...which was unnecessary for that feature.
Macs have their faults.
Nonetheless, Windows and Linux also have their faults, which are much more numerous, in my opinion, than those of Mac OS X. Speed isn't too much of an issue to me, and in any case Macs have historically been faster than Wintels just about exactly as often as the opposite. iTunes may lose some files on occasion, making me point out to it again and again where on my hard drives those files are, but the interface is excellent, smart playlists are incredibly convenient, library sharing (which also works over the Internet, though less automatically than on a network) is amazing, and on and on. The display I criticized has been discontinued, and Apple's current lineup of displays is quite satisfactory, to say the least--never mind rumors of a 30" Cinema Display in the works.
Every system has its faults. Apple's systems generally have fewer. They have made bad products (the Quicktake 200, anybody? The Performa 6400? I've owned and hated both), but the average quality of their products is much higher than that of most other computer companies.
No, that's not what I said. He's not in favor of you stealing, but he trusts you not to, and he doesn't like DRM because, as he has said repeatedly, it "treats the consumer like a criminal".
How's this [slashdot.org] for a better source? And that was the first to come up in a Google search [google.com]. I didn't even bother to look at the ones further down, since I got what I wanted so quickly, but there are probably a few (dozen, hundred, thousand?) more sources there.
Re:Don't buy into the Apple hype machine, AAC (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Yes, it's a nice beginning... (Score:5, Insightful)
'Yea its cool and all but I want DRM free music for $0.19'
[Tracks drop to $0.19, DRM free]
'Sure, thats cool and all but I want to be able to buy multiple tracks with a complex pricing algorithm that determines how mcuh to charge be based on my average usage across a limited period of time, plus the moon phase'
[Tracks do the above]
'Ok ok, I give up, I am just shooting holes in anything that is out there because its easier then admitting that someone MAY have gotten something right.'
I can not even count how many people, WITHOUT EVEN SEEING THE SERVICE, have sat around bitching about it. Its hilarious. Now, days later, they are all using it quietly.
Re:crazy (Score:4, Insightful)
I didn't think so.
Re:And the recording industry went along with this (Score:5, Funny)
This and that snippet (Score:4, Funny)
How on earth are they supposed to do that when they have 200,000 songs? Not to mention the fact that there are going to be lots of different opinions as to what the best part of the song it.
I can imagine being the customer service rep who has the job of sifting through emails like that.
"Dear Apple, I am very angry. My favorite song is 'Silver Squeeze' by the Banana Peppers. But you only have 'Toxic Shock Syndrome' and 'Gaetulian Iarbas' by them, and both of those are off a different and lame album! Also, they cut off 'Toxic Shock' right before the awesome vibraphone solo, and really the sample should be between 0:47 and 1:17 for the best effect. This is NOT FAIR to my favorite band. I DEMAND that you fix this IMMEDIATELY or I won't spend my $0.99 on you!!1!"