Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Businesses Media Apple

Apple Sells Two Million Songs in 16 Days 180

Posted by pudge from the i-hear-it-so-clear dept.
burgburgburg writes "According to Apple's latest press release, iTunes Music Store has sold over two million songs in the 16 days that it has been open. Quick calculations show this is around 1.44 songs per second. And as was the case last week, over half of the songs purchased so far were purchased as albums. Over 4,300 songs were added to the system yesterday, including older catalog stuff (Doors, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus), new albums (Cold, Lizz Wright, and Yeah, Yeah, Yeahs), prerelease tracks (Michelle Branch, Da Brat, Jesse Harris and Kenna) and more."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Sells Two Million Songs in 16 Days More

Apple Sells Two Million Songs in 16 Days

Comments Filter:

  • Is that there is no mechanism for indie bands and labels to get a piece of this action. This is a neat service, but it really only helps the big guys, while Apple has always been about the littleguy.

    • Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:5, Informative)

      by jlgolson ( 19847 ) * on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:21PM (#5957170) Homepage Journal
      Steve Jobs said that the most important thing in the beginning was to get the big 5 record labels on board. Once they did that, and got the thing up and running, they could start courting the indy labels. According to a interview with Time Magazine the indy labels have been calling nonstop since the Music Store started. We'll see indy music soon enough. I can't wait for an extended trance library...

      • Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:4, Insightful)

        by xylafon ( 647596 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @06:56PM (#5959789)
        Trance is gonna suck, as is most dance music. Who wants all their dj mix cds to be one file?? Or worse, have a gap between each track. Apple, oh Apple, WHY won't you address the issue of seamless (but still tracked) music?? if MP3/AAC can't handle it, then you should be supporting OGG or something that can. And the iPod can't even play a trance cd ripped as one track without stopping halfway through. Why the hell can't it read in more data while playing what is currently in memory?? Grrr!!!
        • Or worse, have a gap between each track. Apple, oh Apple, WHY won't you address the issue of seamless (but still tracked) music?? if MP3/AAC can't handle it, then you should be supporting OGG or something that can.

          Uhh, all the albums I play in XMMS [xmms.org] are without gaps in between tracks (other than those on the CD) thanks to the XMMS Crossfade Plugin [mynetcologne.de]. There's nothing intrinsic to the MP3 format that causes the gaps. To do this on the iPod, Apple would have to transfer the next song into the 32- or 64-MB buffe
      • How about uor of print things? It seems viable to have this out of print content put up as MP3's, ya know. It wont really cost any more. I listen to a lot of old post punk, art punk etc, from various places and it's hard to obtain a lot of this stuff....if they could catalogue these hard to find songs, that would be great.

        • Absolutely. Part of the problem with a distributor releasing out of print works, especially the more obscure kind, is that they could have a decent production run of a few tens of thousands of discs, then be unable to sell them in short order; essentially meaning for a good library of such stuff, the backlog needs to be stored somewhere, and could be sitting about for years before all is sold.

          With an online digital-only store, that's irrelevant. A huge obscure catalogue could take up a few dozen gig of sto

    • Re:What surprises me, given their user base (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      There is a mechanism. You pick up the phone and call the label. The label decides, if they want, to pick up the phone and call Apple. Poof.

      Trout Music (home of Trout Fishing in America) is in the midst of the process right now.


    • there is no mechanism for indie bands and labels to get a piece of this action

      I've been submitting requests for my favorite indies. Use the "Requests & Feedback" link in iTunes. Horseflies [thehorseflies.com], anyone?

    • Steve Jobs mentioned adding the indies in several interviews and in his key note. Supposedly the small labels are eager, but there wasn't time.

      We haven't seen much in the way of results yet, and it's still okay to be a little skeptical. It'd make me feel better to see a new category full of smaller labels introduced with some fanfare.

      In general Apple'd be smart to add big new sections of content -- "We're opening a new such-and-so wing of the store" -- rather than adding the Doors one day and Alanis Mor

  • Apple Records must be pissed (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:30PM (#5957244)
    Sosumi

    • Apple records DID sue apple!! (Score:4, Informative)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @04:24PM (#5958458)

      When apple incorporated as apple they supposedly signed an agreement with apple records not to go into the record production bussiness.

      from Wikipedia:

      At one point, Apple Records sued Apple Computer for trademark infringment because the computer company broke their earlier agreement not to add sound to its computers. The case was settled out of court. Apple computers ever since have included a sound labelled sosumi ("So, sue me").

      The label became successful, surviving the legal dissolution of the Beatles in 1974, and continuing to issue new material till 1976, although the holding company, Apple Corps., Ltd., is still in existence. The label was resurrected around the time of the Anthology for use on all Beatles CDs.

  • Europeans know how to use it for Illegal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Gizzmonic ( 412910 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:30PM (#5957248) Homepage Journal
    I hear that some euros have put together a method for using the iTunes store already [macslash.org]. This tomfoolery, along with comments from Sony Music that they don't want Windows users to have the same freedom as Apple users do now, makes me think that the RIAA is already getting cold feet, despite the money.

    Europeans are too smart, and the RIAA is getting nervous because they don't have control over all those Montenegrins, Serbians, and Andorrans.

    When all those German techno records starting moving to the top of the store, Steve Jobs new there was a problem. He put on his best black turtleneck and headed for the server room, but when he looked in the mirror, he realized that he was Dietre from Sprockets.

    Man! That was a weird dream!

    • unt now... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by zogger ( 617870 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @03:38PM (#5957929) Homepage Journal
      It ess time for zee apple money dance!

      About time. Apple got a clue. Cheap singles, downloadable, mix and match. Just the formula that's been obvious for years now, just needed to be done on a big scale from a brand name outfit. Any of the big guys could have done this, software side, hardware side, music industry side. People asked them, they knew about it.

      Just shows how many bad ideas can get investor money and interest, and how long a good idea can lay there begging to be picked up, even when millions of people are pointing at it, going "hey, look, a good idea!"

      And just think the bigger push for better and cheaper broadband now, just from this one move, and it's a "legit" move, too, zero "controversy" about it or it's legality. It would be *nice* if it was cheaper than a dollar,and a scosh more flexible, but all in all it's a good start anyway.
      • That's been my thoughts on this - It's been sitting there being a "good idea" for ages. There's no innovation in putting together an online music store, and indeed it's not a first. All it needed was to bring a few current things together, and polish... Among their other talents, Apple are fantastic at providing 'polish'!

        The way things stand now, nothing is simpler than using the Apple Music Store. Current offerings have been more painful to use than walking out your front door and buying a real CD, and th
      • About time. Apple got a clue.

        Yes. The new 'iClue' will be availible from the Apple store next quarter, priced $500. A version for windows users will be availible soon after, but costing $2000.

  • They don't have to buy Universal... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Glass of Water ( 537481 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:31PM (#5957251) Journal
    Because soon they will BE Universal.

    Seriously, it would be cool if they got big enough as a content reseller to influence the DRM debate in favor of common sense.

    • Re:They don't have to buy Universal... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @03:33PM (#5957883) Homepage
      Which would probably be bad. If apple owns a share in any of these labels, others may be reluctant to allow their songs to be sold through the service.

      Apple is dependent upon the whole music industry cooperating with them.
      • It's amazing, really that they've managed to make the Apple Records restrictions actually work for them. The industry knows that if Apple ever tries to compete with them the ghost of the Beatles (Apple Records) will rise up and beat Apple down so Apple uniquely becomes a large enough player who *can* partner without being able to be an actual threat.

        Legal jujitsu!
        I like it.

  • A ways to go with even the "mainstream" alt music (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Golias ( 176380 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:33PM (#5957278)
    Still no sign of "Hit Somebody (The Hockey Song)" by Warren Zevon.

    Also, they still only have part of the Cibo Matto album "Viva! La Woman," and have only two albums from They Might Be Giants.

    But it is getting there. I'm very pleased I was able to download Cake's "Short Skirt/Long Jacket" without paying for the rest of the album, which frankly sounds exactly the same as their last three albums, only without the novelty of being fresh and new.

    Once the Apple catches up stocking the stuff I just mentioned, then maybe they will move on to the more obscure bands and indie labels.

  • I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:5, Insightful)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:33PM (#5957280) Journal
    Since the people downloading mp3s are only doing it for the convenience, not to save money.
    • This would be a relevant comment if iTunes for Windows was available. Until then you are only seeing Mac users buying music. As there isn't a version of kazaa for the mac.

      • Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:4, Funny)

        by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @03:39PM (#5957938) Journal
        Good point. I should have said "napster" instead of "kazaa."
      • Everybody knows Mac users have more money than PC users.

        • Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jellomizer ( 103300 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @05:04PM (#5958871)
          Everybody knows Mac users have more money than PC users.
          Eather that or Mac users are more willing to pay for stuff. I think Mac users who realize that they are in the minority actually pay for stuff that they find as a value. There is probably a sience of obglation to pay for stuff so they can keep their favorate platform and have it supported. As long as Apple Computers and the supporting software is profitable then they will still make products and software and impove opon them, If it isn't profitible then they wouldnt be supporing the idea. That is why I will pay for Red Hat or Susa CD's not the fact I want to wast my cash. But to help keep selling Linux Distributions profitible for the companies. And the companies will invest their resources into linux.

    • Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Heh. I like the way you morphed "steal stuff" into "save money" to make this little wisecrack.

      Yes, it is cheaper to steal than to buy. No, this is not particularly insightful, nor even especially interesting. No, you are not smart for pointing this out.
      • I like how you morphed "commit copyright infringement" into "steal stuff."

        • Re:I guess this will kill kazaa (Score:2, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Oh, boy. Not THIS again. This horse has been well and truly beaten already.

          However, for the record and because I can't pass up a challenge: the crime known as "copyright infringement" is a special class of the general activity known as "theft."

          theft: the act or instance of stealing

          steal: to take without right or permission

          take: to get into one's possession

          All definitions come from dictionary.com.

          Is copyright infringement "theft" in the sense defined in the criminal statutes? No. But neither is embezzl
          • 1 a : the act of stealing; specifically : the felonious taking and removing of personal property **with intent to deprive the rightful owner of it** --www.m-w.com

            "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. That ideas should freely spread from one to another over the globe, for the moral and mutual instruction of man, and improvement of his condition, seems to have been peculiarly and benevole
          • Intellectual property is separated out from other property because it is not owned by right but by government privilege. This is why there is a copyright and patent clause in the US Constitution that is distinct from the right to own property. Unauthorized copying may or may not be in violation of the govt. granted privilige and only when it is in violation of such privilege is copying theft. By a 7-2 margin, the current US supreme court voted recently that the Congress has virtual carte blanche to set such
    • Not until its available arround the world on every platform
  • Eminem sold seven million full albums in 14 days.
    • Yeah but how many people bought that album for one or two songs?

    • Re:To put this into perspective... (Score:4, Funny)

      by mikedaisey ( 413058 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @03:16PM (#5957724) Homepage

      Eminem has a slightly larger user base, I suspect.
    • But this is only Mac users, which are (depending on who you believe) between 5 and 15% of the market. Extrapolate that out to where this is released for Windoze, and you see...

    • More perspective (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jerf ( 17166 )
      At two million in 16 days, that's a $125,000 per day. That's 45.625 million per year.

      Apple's current market capatalization [yahoo.com] is 6.781 billion, as of this writing.

      Barring continued unlikely exponential growth, this won't "save" the company (to the extent it might need "saving". However, I suspect that it is certainly a profitable aspect of the company, probably already profitable (though hard to tell), so even should The Worst happen, this will probably be spun off successfully; too lucrative to disappear in
      • ...you also have to consider how many ipods/Macs the existence of this service will sell. Not that I'm arguing that it will save the company or anything.

        Also, keep in mind that they are planning on having a Windows version out soon, which could tremendously increase the market. If it scales linearly with marketshare, that will be a pretty big number.

      • Re:More perspective (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Bluejay42 ( 234007 )
        WTF does market capitalization have to do with the health of a company?! Will iTunes Music Store have an effect on AAPL's revenues and profits is the relevant question. You also failed to consider the ramifications of iTunes on Windows.

        AAPL's 2002 revenues were $5,742 million. Net profits were $65 million.

        So, $45 mil extra in revenues is indeed insignificant... about 0.7% of 2002 revs. Furthermore, they have to pay the music companies... Word is they will have to pay about 65% of the gross revenues to
        • WTF does market capitalization have to do with the health of a company?!

          45 million dollars in my pocket would set me up for life.

          45 million dollars for a multi-billion dollar company is operating expenses for a day or two.

          The bigger you are, the more you need to keep you alive. And like an animal, a company can only "cut back" so much before it becomes untenable and simply dies. Unlike animals, portions of it can live on, but the point is that while the service may seem impressive, and it is, it should
          • The most recent quarter had Apple being profitable at $0.04 a share. Apple has 365M shares outstanding so a $0.01 per share difference in profitability is 3.65M in profit. If Apple is profiting $0.30/song then 125,000 songs per day means a quarterly profit increase of about $0.01 at the current rate of sales or 25% of their last quarterly profit.

            For financial analysts and the stock obsessed this is a significant change. It will grow even more significant next year when the Windows version of the iTunes sto
      • Nobody's claiming that this is going to 'save' Apple. What it will do is enhance profitability and get market analysts to take the Wintel FUD with a larger grain of salt.

        What's the Microsoft web service that is currently expanding their revenue as much as Apple is gaining from the iTunes store? How about something that's as profitable as .mac? As the computer market matures everybody expects web services to become more important. Apple's making the transition in a very public way and in a way that's going
    • Yes. But I suspect that Eminem did not continue to sell that mane records in the next 16 days.

      The important point here really is that sales per average day have not diminished much since last week. 1 million in 7 days, 2 million in 16. This seems to indicate that the initial sales are not just a spike, they will be consistant. Eminem selling 7 million albums was a spike in both his own sales and in the sales of CDs in general.

      • And: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Andre Breton ( 605694 )
        Those figures usually only relate to sales to stores and chains. It doesn't mean that people actually bought that many CDs. Eminem could sell 10 million CDs to stores, but if no customer would get them they would eventually end up in the bargain bin. He would have nontheless gained his gold/platinum/whatsover status...
        • Those figures usually only relate to sales to stores and chains. It doesn't mean that people actually bought that many CDs.

          I believe you are mistaken. The Soundscan system [soundscan.com] tracks barcodes as they are scanned by record stores. Thus, they track sales to consumers.

    • Eminem should replace Steve Jobs as CEO. I can see it now. Instead of "Think Different" Apple's new slogan will be "Bitch, I'm gonna kill you!"
      • Think Different is too old anyway, and I think Eminem would have to change the line to "Bitch, I'm gonna switch you!"

        (or maybe "Bill, I....", forget it).
    • That's clueless. You're comparing an artist who distributes via several different distribution chains, has an established reputation, and was no doubt promoted in a major way to a computer company initiating a distribution method that is only available in the US (to US credit card holders anyway), only available to computer users who have an internet connection (48% of the population) and connect via Macintosh (around 4-6% of internet connected computers (macs connect to the internet more often than their m
  • Anyone have any data on the expected signal loss when going from .aac to .mp3 (or .ogg, for that matter). I know, it depends on lots of different variables (mp3 bitrate, original signal, human range of hearing, etc...) but it is even worth it to burn these songs to CD so I can rip them back to MP3? Anyone tried it? How does it sound?

    • Re:How lossy is lossy? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by goombah99 ( 560566 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @03:26PM (#5957827)
      I can give you one data point.

      128 bit ACC ->AIFF -> 128bit mp3

      produces 11% RMS distortion of the original waveform. enought to hear.

      on the otherhand
      128 bit ACC -> AIFF -> 128 bit ACC

      produces 6% RMS distortion.

      I have not yet tested higher bit rates for MP3. however I would be surprised if 6% was not an aupper bound. This is not a pyscho acoustic test, merely an RMS test. 6% is quite acceptable for most listeners since a change of speakers or room can produce a simmilar effect. what is not clear is how this affects sounds humans are espically perceptive too such as the crach of symbols or noise in quiet passages.

      Finally I have made an intriguing observation. I compared the AIFF I got off my CD to the ACC-> AIFF I downloaded from iTunes Music store. interestingly, the waveforms are not only different but the Pitch isdifferent. that's right the music plays just slightly (imperceptibly) slower on the iTunes version. I'm not sure why. Are not CD's digital, and if so what could cause the rate of playback to change. (were talking millseonds per second shifts in rate of play). It's also unlcear why the waveform of the ACC I purchased and the one I generated off the CD differed in ways besides pitch. The difference was larger than the difference between MP3 and ACC encoding using itunes. this suggests that the en-codec that apple is using is not the SAME one as the one found in itunes and introduces considerably more distrotion than the one found in itunes.

      • ACC? I thought March was over already.

        To quote Fark: "Duke sucks."

        (Funny joke, though I'm a Duke fan.)
      • 128 bit ACC ->AIFF -> 128bit mp3 ... 11% RMS...
        128 bit ACC -> AIFF -> 128 bit ACC...6% RMS

        Well, yeah, its the same psychoacoustic model, you're only hearing the generation loss in AAC to AAC - you're hearing a model mismatch in AAC->MP3. Can you run the numbers on:

        CD->128bit mp3->AIFF->128 bit ACC

        and see how that compares? That would be an interesting number.

      • Re:How lossy is lossy? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by superposed ( 308216 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @06:27PM (#5959594)
        "The waveforms are not only different but ... the the music plays just slightly (imperceptibly) slower on the iTunes version."

        Apple went back to the master tapes for a lot of their recordings. Jobs claimed in his announcement that some Music Store files would actually sound better than commercial CDs, which are not always made from such good sources.

        If the track was converted to digital format from scratch, rather than using the same digital source as your CD, it would be reasonable to expect (minor) differences in playback speed and waveform.
  • The iTunes Music Store has to be one of the coolest things Apple has done so far. It's things like this that constantly keep the Apple true believers asking; "What're they gonna think of next?" Yes, I bought a whole load of songs. Only thing is, they keep getting my e-mail address wrong. Somebody's getting my invoices, only I don't know who. Apple insists that they've got my correct address, but to no avail. Whatever, I'll just set up a new account.

    But that's beside the point! iTunes rocks! I love it! No
  • The poor RIAA! We must come to their rescue!

    [/endofsarcasm]

    Think about this people: if they did this for a year, there would be 45,411,840 songs purchased in one year... from ONE RETAILER!

    1 dollar per song, 45 million dollars. 1 retailer.

    Lobby that to your bitches in the government!

    • Re:Their days are doomed... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ip_vjl ( 410654 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @03:43PM (#5957970) Homepage
      Not to belittle the store (as I'm anxiously awaiting the Windows version) but you can't expect that these numbers will remain constant once the newness wears off.

      The first press release was that over 1 million sold in the first week. The second release was that over 2 million sold in 16 days. Using those numbers it would indicate that sales are slowing down, otherwise it should have been two million in 14 days.

      Is this statistically accurate? No. My point is that two weeks is just WAY TOO SMALL a sample to determine the long term economic viability of this project.

      I'd like to see it succeed, as I've felt the industry always needed something to replace the 45 single. Good luck to Apple, but to say "if they did this for a year" is one huge if .

      • Not to belittle the store (as I'm anxiously awaiting the Windows version) but you can't expect that these numbers will remain constant once the newness wears off.

        No, the numbers will skyrocket once the newness wears off. Because, just as soon as there is a week-on-week downturn, the Windows version gets released and the cycle starts again at a much higher volume (or so the theory goes - studies show Mac users pay far more often for their software so that might extend into music too).
      • you can't expect that these numbers will remain constant once the newness wears off.

        On the other hand the market keeps growing. In that same million dollar first week only about one million mac users downloaded the new iTunes. There are however 25 million mac users in total. I suspect there will be a spike the first couple of weeks as early adopters/geeks try it out. Immediately after that it will fall off for a few weeks/months but going forward it will continue to grow as the installed base continues t

  • A Win In The War For Fair Use (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ihatewinXP ( 638000 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @03:21PM (#5957769)
    Read: Apple has sold 2 million consumer friendly DRM enabled songs, with the big 5 on board and attracting new labels every day. Already the most successful online music distibutor ever, Apple has poised itself to be a major player for years to come in the emerging of the digital hub. In two years the ipod could have a big brother (or may just morph into) that downloads movies using the same basic format. A revenue stream like the ipod/music store combo is a god send and is probably keeping Apple afloat during this G4 debacle -

    Oh and iTunes4, with cover art, an intergrated music store, my ipod interface, and streaming (and downloading) capabilities for my friends over the net, please show me the windows app that lets me do this out of the box with a great interface to boot. For 'free' on every mac.

  • Stupid Pricing games... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by weave ( 48069 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @04:41PM (#5958646) Journal
    I've bought 49 tunes so far and am generally happy with it, but I have been growing more and more annoyed at some of the pricing games.

    Like Coldplay's Parachutes album. It's priced at $11.99 -- WTF happened to 9.99 albums? But it's only 10 songs (one of which is a whole 46 seconds long). OK, so buy them individually. Sorry, nope. Track 10 is marked "album only." The other Coldplay Album is 10.89 for 11 songs, basically the price per song.

    Now perhaps the record labels are forcing these limitations on Apple. Maybe they are the reason that a CD of 18 songs is for some reason missing one track and available "partial album only" so you have to buy all remaining 17 songs at 99 cents per. I mean, how can you sell some albums like Dream Theater's Scenes from a Memory or 6DOIT which are complete album-long epics and offer it as "partial album only?" Heaven forbid I get 70 minutes worth of music for only $9.99. If you sell little 3 minute songs you can get over 20 songs on a CD that way... That's less than 50 cents a track. Oh my guiddy aunt, can't allow that.

    (Maybe I *will* go back to aquiring my CDs the old fashioned way after all... Maybe the record labels want that to happen. Maybe they want iTMS to fail. Maybe I will fail to clarify what I mean by "old fashined way" with respect to aquiring my CDs.)

    /incoherent ranting...

    • I got a Fela Kuti album (Confusion/Gentleman) that has four songs, all of which are close to or over 10 minutes in length (one's like 25 minutes long or something), for 3.96.

      Admittedly, Fela Kuti may not be exactly super-popular, but maybe that's the point.

      I do hope they fix the "Partial Album" problem though, it's a real PITA. I am curious to know whether that's a licensing or technological issue.

  • Please to tell me (Score:4, Insightful)

    by onShore_Jake ( 80260 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @08:08PM (#5960191) Journal
    They need to have a system to tell users when songs are added. Several songs I want (Led Zep, latest Allman Bros etc) were not on the store when I checked. I would get them when they are available but I will not check every time I hear they added songs.

  • Great, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lvdrproject ( 626577 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @08:11PM (#5960212) Homepage
    Firstly, to the RIAA, i'd just like to say "TOLD YOU SO!". If they had embraced this from the very beginning, they would have a lot more friends in the world, and they wouldn't have had to invest all that time and money into combatting piracy. To get to the point, though....

    As everybody probably agrees, this is a great step in the right direction. This is exactly the kind of system that will bring "MP3s" (i know they're not MP3s, but that's what everybody actually means when they say "digital audio" or whatever) to the masses, legally. However, there are a few problems.

    These songs are all AAC. Now, a good deal of the "new" or "lesser-known" formats that Apple has picked up on, they've turned into pretty much ubiquitous formats, for all systems. So, the fact that AAC is largely unsupported by most media players, hardware players, and other audio utilities is only going to be an issue for a little while. Once Apple has propogated AAC all throughout the PC world, it'll be just as popular as Vorbis or MPC. But there are several problems with this. Number one, as everybody knows, it's all DRM. That means that i'm paying just about the same price as a retail CD (or probably a little less, but not much), but i can only play those songs on approved hardware. (I haven't read up on Apple's AAC DRM scheme, but i assume it's much like WMA's.) So that's one problem. Another problem is, AAC is lossy, and not everybody likes it, for that reason and others. If i'm paying for a song, i want it in full, crystal-clear, lossless quality, so that i can encode it into my lossy format of choice, in order to make it compatible with my desired hardware/software. Or, at least, i'd like the option to (i understand that not everybody wants to download a full lossless CD). Of course, if they ever did go lossless, they'd have to get rid of the DRM (or it would be mostly pointless).

    But i think, realistically, everybody knows that that's not going to happen. No matter how far the music industry goes with this, the music will ALWAYS be DRM. There is never going to be a service that offers just plain MP3s/Vorbises/FLACs/WAVs/<insert desired audio format>. It's always going to be restricted-access media, because the RIAA can't bear to let their content go freely to the user.

    In other words, it's a step in the right direction, but i think it's the last one.

  • Now, you'd have to do something to prevent spamming, but why not make it almost self-serve for Indie Labels (or even Artists themselves) to get listed? They pay a nominal fee to set up their user account, and then collect change when their stuff gets downloaded.

    That would be huge. Create "vendor" accounts that can produce real CDs "on demand" for $10 at your local record shop. They have machines that do this: feed in audio data and .tiffs for the jacket cover and such, and the machine prints, burns and spi

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close