Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Music' started by Marc Colella, May 5, 2003.
Here's a thought. Apple made a million dollars this week. Now, remember, Apple Music ONLY works with Apple computers, currently 5% of the market. So, if they bring in Windows customers, they stand to make a total of $20 million a week. They say they'll have a windows version out before the end of the year. If they continue on at this rate, they're losing $19 million a week, so I think that Windows version will be here much faster than we think. Enough math. I'm more surprised than anyone that this took off like it did. Most people I talked to thought 99 cents was too high, like myself. But, some said it sounded great. Of course, none of them have Macs. Could this be the future? Well, I always knew eventually there would be a legal Napster. It was destiny. And for all the possible problems, there is at least one possibility that I am all for. With this setup, we have a new distributor. And it's not the record companies. You see, there is no physical product. Once recorded (which the artist pays for), anyone can convert that master tape to mp3 or aac format. All you need then is a distribution channel. Apple is the distributor. Who does this equation leave out? The record companies and the gestapo-like RIAA!
Mac user here. The AAC files that Apple offers sound better and are smaller than MP3 files. The AAC files are even from the original masters where available, not just ripped from CD. The songs that I bought do have the artwork with them and it is viewable in iTunes. I too hope the lyrics come with the songs at some point. I don't think the price is too much for individual songs. PAT
Jobs said it during his presentation. I can't seem to find a direct quote, but it is indirectly quoted on several sites which covered the event, including The Register:
I am extremely doubtful that Apple is now in the remastering business and is taking the time and spending the money to go back to the original master tapes to make these files "better" than retail CDs. I'd like to see more details about this...
I guess it is possible that a few songs/albums were given special treatment, but it would be insincere of Jobs to make a claim if let's say, 100 out of the 200,000 songs were remastered from the original master tapes specifically for Apple to encode on a lossy format. It doesn't make any sense. Again, I think we need more details.
Steve Jobs had this to say during the press event launching the new music service: Taken from Macnn.com (although I think they forgot to include a word or something) "some of the sound better than CDs because we went back to the master copies." I too wish Apple would mention what songs are taken from the "master copies" PAT
I've glanced through this thread. Just thought I'd put my two cents in. Sorry if something I write has already been mentioned. I for one like the idea of 99 cents per song. I find that with a large majority of the albums I buy nowadays, there are only 4 or 5 songs on them that I really like. So paying $5 for the songs that I actually like seems worth it to me. One thing I thought about though was this: Make Sure To Backup Your Files Regularily! If you've downloaded a load of songs, and your hard drive suddenly dies - say goodbye to all the money you spent on the MP3's. You're gonna have to pay for and download them all over again. Hmm, I wonder when this service will be available in Canada...
For those who wonder who the iTunes Music Store is aimed at, I know who it is: me! I listen to all of my music through iTunes or in my car CD player. Very rarely do I listen to one of my three DVD-A discs. So I guess I don't have much audiophile in me. Then again, neither does most of the world. It is my interpretation that the iTunes MS is not supposed to replace or even compete with purchasing actual CDs, let alone HiRez stuff. It is supposed to compete with illegal downloading, people who like music the easy way. People who hear a tune on the radio and want it in their home without going to the store, buying a CD, and finding out it's the only good song on the album and never listening to the disc again. In fact, the feature of the store I doubt I'll ever use is purchasing a whole album. If I want an enitre disc I have no problem shelling out the extra dollars for the real deal so I can have a physical copy in my collection for all time. In the last year I can think of one CD I listened to in my CD player more than once. And that occassion was because the night before I had seen the band in concert and iTunes just wasn't letting me listen to their music as loud and clear as I wanted to. But most of the time my music is played at reasonable levels through my home theater and serves as ambiance to me studying, working or... you know... So, to sum it all up, hooray for iTunes! I'm happy to pay a buck for a song that to me is equal in quality to everything else I've got in iTunes. I look forward to diversifying my collection with songs from artists I'd be scared to purchase a whole album from. Now when I read a recommendation on HTF or read a great review elsewhere I can sample the music for much less than the $14 it usually takes to invest in an artist. Pieter
Andy and Thomas touched on an interesting point--how will insurance companies treat lost or stolen music that was downloaded (and paid for)? Theoretically, you can have thousands of dollars "invested" in your hard drives. Will they be willing to pay for the repurchase of such or will it be incumbent on the owner to keep backups?