# $1 a song by Apple



## Inline_guy (Mar 4, 2003)

The LA Times is saying that Apple is making a napster like service where you will pay one dollar  to download a song in ACC format.  You could burn it, or put it on your iPod, or just listen to it on your computer!

What do you think?  If it is true, then I am excited about it.  I would go for it in a flash.


Matthew


----------



## mr. k (Mar 4, 2003)

But I wonder if they would sell cd's at discounted rates, because there's no cd, just computer files?  most cd's have 15 or 16 tracks, and 15-16 bucks is way too expensive.  Ive ended up buying a lot of my cd's secondhand, just to save some money.  buy mabye like $1 per track and then once you buy 10 tracks you get a few dollars off, or mabye they could sell songs as a cd...  Sounds like it would have potential, just increasing the digital lifestyle theme that apple has been hitting on recently.


----------



## mr. k (Mar 4, 2003)

> The plan contrasts sharply with Apple's previous marketing campaign for Macs, which rankled many music executives who felt it promoted piracy. Apple's advertisements were emblazoned with the mantra "rip, mix, burn," referring to the computers' ability to copy songs and record them onto CDs.



I SINCERELY hope that this does not mean what it looks like... Apple will be giving us songs that are disabled in some way?  Because if I can't rip, mix and burn songs I download, I won't have much use for them.  I don't have an iPod or a laptop so I can't take them with me, which is where I would listen to them.  That does not sound good!


----------



## substrate (Mar 4, 2003)

$1/song is still too expensive, so it will fail if this is true. I still buy CDs and my iPod is 100% legit in terms of any mp3 on there being ripped from a CD I own.

At a dollar a pop this will add up to about 12 to 15 bucks for the average album, which seems high since you no longer own a physical copy of it. With a CD I can make as many copies as I want, so  I have copies on my iPod, but I've also got several 10's of gigabytes of my CDs ripped at work. If they add digital rights management then you may only be allowed to have one copy, so it can be on your iPod, or at work, or...

I don't really know what an ACC is, and a google search didn't reveal anything helpful. Is it a lossy format like mp3? If so this is another point against it, since translating between two lossy formats usually makes pretty horrendous sounding audio and my linux box at work probably doesn't speak ACC.


----------



## Mills (Mar 4, 2003)

AAC as in advanced audio codec


----------



## Pengu (Mar 4, 2003)

Isn't aac supposed to be the "new mp3", in that it is a compressed format, which offers very close to CD quality, just like MP3 does, but presumably with smaller file sizes or whatever..


----------



## Inline_guy (Mar 4, 2003)

AAC is a compressed format that is better than CD quality.  It is supposed to be the quality of the original source before even losing a little quality in the CD making process.  So AAC is a good thing.  And the article said Apple still wants you to be able to burn your CD's of music so there should be no loss if freedom.  That is also the reason Sony may not get on board.

But regardless, I think $.99 a song is a great price.  Music is not and should not be free.  If you rather buy a whole CD then great, but I don't.  I would like to able to just buy the songs I want, and then maybe if a really great album comes along buy that.

What you have to understand is that times are changing.  Many very educated people think if something does not change soon the record industry as we know it, will collapse within the next 5 to 10 years. 

The record and movie industry are dead set on protecting themselves and their artist.  As someone who went to Art school I understand what it is to pour your heart into something, and then have people just think they can take it.

I think this is a step in the right direction for the record industry for Apple and for digital music.

Matthew


----------



## twister (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by substrate _
> *$1/song is still too expensive, so it will fail if this is true...
> 
> At a dollar a pop this will add up to about 12 to 15 bucks for the average album, which seems high since you no longer own a physical copy of it... *



I think this is great!  For example.  If I want the new Uncle Kracker song i'd go pay a $1 for it.  However I wouldn't buy the whole CD for one song.  Now this idea is to slow down file sharing.  If you want the whole CD then go to Walmart, I don't think this service is targeting people who want the entire CD.  The idea is for those people who just want a song or two.   

Of course if you shop at Sam Goody than buying a whole album here would be cheap. 

Also, think of the possibilities of an artist putting out test songs.  Instead of making whole album, they could put up a few songs and get feedback.


----------



## Jason (Mar 4, 2003)

i agree with the 99 cents being too expensive...

but how about this? If you want to buy all the songs from a cd, it costs 60 cents per song, and if you just want a couple songs it costs 99cents?

kinda like a price break for buying a whole cd


----------



## moav (Mar 4, 2003)

I'm am pretty sure that Apple will also allow you to download an entire CD... the best part of this is that it will be a bit less then going out and purchasing it from the store since... Apple will not have any overhead, the record companies need not have any fancy packaging, and lastly the consumer supplies the're own media. So, we might be able to get those CDs for about 10-15% less then in the stores... very cool. Of course this will now hurt the record stores but you can never create any new business without destroying something else... nothing. 

cars killed the horse and buggy industry
planes and trucks killed the rail industry
t.v. killed the radio 
internet destroyed some brick and mortar
computers killed the abacuss industry
videos destroyed the movie theatre industry
Apple will now destroy Peaches, Sams Town, Tower & Virgin


----------



## fryke (Mar 4, 2003)

.99 is not too expensive. If you buy a single you pay quite a bit more, dontcha? If the .99 give you the right to burn it onto a CD, to put it on your iPod and to play it on your Mac, that's quite a goodie. If it's also 'just another AAC file' that you could even *gasp* share...

Let it be true. Let it be a success. Let Apple add Windows compatibility three months after it starts. And suddenly Apple is the integrator of the record industry, the new SONY and the saviour of the music industry, too. Too much to dream of?


----------



## heathpitts (Mar 4, 2003)

I think this is a great idea also. This is what I wanted from a music service. But the songs I want instead of having to pay $15 for an older cd for one song that I want. I do hope they include older tracks instead of only newer ones.


----------



## vw_rules (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by moav _
> *
> cars killed the horse and buggy industry
> planes and trucks killed the rail industry
> ...



and I believe...
Video killed the radio star as well

I think it's a great move, I have downloaded many songs to find out they were crappy rips or fakes put out by the music industry, and there are many times that I don't want the whole album, just a few select tracks.  I like the idea and, since it's Apple, it will be cool.


----------



## banjo_boy (Mar 4, 2003)

Apple will store 10,000 songs

4,998 Amy Mann songs
4,998 Barenaked Ladies songs
4 Moby songs

I am just nervous that they will only put up music Apple likes


----------



## ksv (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by banjo_boy _
> *Apple will store 10,000 songs
> 
> 4,998 Amy Mann songs
> ...



That would be more like Jon Anderson and Beach Boys


----------



## mindbend (Mar 4, 2003)

I had this idea three years ago and it's great to see Apple going with it (not that I was the only one who thought of such an obvious solution).

They even used my pricing model (buck a song). They'll need to offer discounts for entire albums, though.

Also, you can guarantee that somebody, somewhere will make an AAC to MP3 converter app that batch converts files. Slightly inconvenient, but a reasonable compromise to get legal, quality music so conveniently.

What may kill it is if they can't get enough big companies and enough songs/albums. They are gonig to need buttloads of songs to choose from, not just obscure startup bands and the like. EVERYBODY'S gonna have to play along for this to work.

Good luck Apple!


----------



## themacko (Mar 4, 2003)

I read that 4 of the 5 big record companies have pretty much agreed to Apple's proposal.


----------



## edX (Mar 4, 2003)

some people will just never be happy until everything in life is free. a buck a song is CHEAP!! Like Fryke said, try buying a cd single for a buck or even 2. even back in the days when you could buy an album (vinyl thingy with music) for about $4, a single cost a buck (ok, it had 2 songs). That was around 30 years ago. 
I hear very little music these days that i would want an entire cd by the artist. but occassionally i hear a song i like. i still wouldn't pay the cost of a single cd nor will i pirate it. this would be a great solution for people like me.
for people that still want the whole cd, with packaging and the works, you can still go out and buy it at the price you're accustomed to.


----------



## banjo_boy (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by themacko _
> *I read that 4 of the 5 big record companies have pretty much agreed to Apple's proposal. *



I have to say I am excited about this prospect too. A buck a song is great! I will have a very hard time getting music off of it though. I am a bluegrass boy. Most bluegrass is on independent labels. But, I am not sad about that at all!


----------



## gwynarion (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by substrate _
> *I don't really know what an ACC is, and a google search didn't reveal anything helpful. Is it a lossy format like mp3? If so this is another point against it, since translating between two lossy formats usually makes pretty horrendous sounding audio and my linux box at work probably doesn't speak ACC. *


Unless I am much mistaken AAC is at the heart of the audio portion of the MP4 format.  I know I've made MP4s using Quicktime 6 and some helper apps.  So far in my tests I have found the quality of the AAC-based MP4s to be quite superior to that of MP3s, not to mention the smaller file sizes.  The one disadvantage that I have found in them so far is that they do not support ID3 tags, which means that having a lot of information about the song attached to the file does not work.  Oh, and they seem to have some trouble with certain title/album names, for some reason...

I also have to say that I think $1 per song is fairly reasonable, though I have one suggestion and one concern.  The suggestion is that they charge somewhere between $.25 and $.30 per minute, rather than a flat dollar.  This way shorter songs will cost a bit less and those of us who would like longer songs will pay a bit more.  My concern is that the files will be made available at something like 96- (roughly equiv to 128- MP3).  Personally, when I rip MP3s I do it at 256-, and I like my MP4s at 192-.


----------



## andrewhicks (Mar 4, 2003)

If this works out, it will be great.

For those of us in Europe used to paying the equivalent of $20-26 for a CD, this will save us money.  I only hope they introduce a try-before-you-buy option so that you can listen to songs.

Did the article also mention availability of different types of music (classic for example)?

Andrew


----------



## bubbajim (Mar 4, 2003)

I thought that the reason why CDs cost up around $15 - $18 is because of the production of the media (packaging, media, mastering, etc.)  So to get the song without the CD is saving money for someone.  I guess Apple picks that up as profit for providing the service.  Still though you should look at this as a premium service.  Someone is already providing you with digitally mastered (not kazaa crap) music and giving it to you for a reasonable price and delivery method will be effortless for us OS X users!  I hope this works out well for Apple.


----------



## mightyjlr (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by bubbajim _
> *I thought that the reason why CDs cost up around $15 - $18 is because of the production of the media (packaging, media, mastering, etc.)  So to get the song without the CD is saving money for someone.  I guess Apple picks that up as profit for providing the service.  Still though you should look at this as a premium service.  Someone is already providing you with digitally mastered (not kazaa crap) music and giving it to you for a reasonable price and delivery method will be effortless for us OS X users!  I hope this works out well for Apple. *



the cost to manufacture a CD (media and packaging is well under a dollar.  I think mastering is a little more, but I would say 10$ of that 15$ CD is going to the record company, the rest goes to the band and packaging.


----------



## Androo (Mar 4, 2003)

it can go horribly wrong though:
once i wanted to get a foo fighters song, it says that it was "All My Life", but it turned out to be Eminem! That can happen - you pay 1 dollar and it's not the song you wanted, or it isn't the entire thing.


----------



## Androo (Mar 4, 2003)

Hey, I heard that itunes 4 is coming out soon too! It would be neat if they put this program onto iTunes 4, so that you have Library, then another built in playlist called iDeo (kind of like audio, but with an i), and when you do the search thingy on the top right, it searches for songs around the USA (and canada!), just like Napster. Also, they better make it so that you get a 10 second preview of each song, so you know what it is, and that it actually IS that song (read my last post  ).
Androo.


----------



## bubbajim (Mar 4, 2003)

Androo:  What you are decribing sounds like a typical song pirate complaint.  Apple will be providing premium music direct from the record company.  Apple is not going to hookup 100 xservers and download music from Kazaa or Limewire to then provide it to us for a fee.


----------



## bubbajim (Mar 4, 2003)

I also think that Apple will provide this in a catalog fashion.  You would be able to browe their 'Playlist' in iTunes, drag over the songs you want into a local playlist or you main library, and then be prompted for payment.  It would almost be like a streaming server, so being able to preview the music should not be a problem.  Don't ask Apple to be your napster.  I think Apple has made it clear that they do not want you to steal music.


----------



## toast (Mar 4, 2003)

By opening this service, Apple would show that new compression formats does not automatically mean easier music pirating.

I hope they'll open such a service. Although I won't change my habits.


----------



## sheepguy42 (Mar 4, 2003)

First off, if you only count the songs on each CD you _actually wanted_ then $1 a song is cheap. Also, most of the $$ from a CD goes to: Retail outlet (online or physical store), record company, artist, record company (2X cause they take A LOT). Only a small portion goes into the physical product, partly because record companies are huge/greedy, and partly because the real product is the actual music, not the CD. fryke makes an even better point about singles.
The question I have: obviously this will be a credit-card based purchasing system. Credit cards charge a company $$ for each transaction. Will Apple simply take your credit info (perhaps use an existing AppleID account) and charge you at the end of each month for whatever you downloaded? 
Also, surely there will be implications for .mac users ("this week only, .mac users can download 5 free songs!").
I am glad they are using the smaller ACC format, so hopefully iTunes 4 _will_ come soon, and fix the lack of EQ support for ACC files. I guess the free starter pack of songs on every Mac will soon be ACC files, taking up that much less space!
One concern, like one gwynarion had, is the bitrate. Right now, Apple uses, defaults to, and suggests 160 for MP#'s, which is better than the 128 crud you typically see on free (legal or not) downloads. While I am sure they will keep a higher-than-the-rest standard, I would much prefer them to take advantage of ACC's true VBR (Variable Bitrate) feature, so there is no doubt that you are getting "CD quality" sound. As far as gwynarion's suggestion of charging per minute, this would not be fair to classical music fans, among others. Besides, I get just as much enjoyment out of BROTHER's "It's All Good" (close to 3 minutes) as I do their "Romp & Circumstance" (over 6 minutes). I feel they are of roughly equal value, so why should I pay twice as much just because one is longer (Don't I suffer enough having to wait for it to download longer?  ). I'm sure I'll have more to say later.


----------



## Androo (Mar 4, 2003)

Dude with looney tunes character avatar:
Read this! 
 iTunes 4.0 (as it's currently labeled) has been long awaited... with various feature expectations.  One feature includes dynamic library sharing which was demonstrated at MacWorld NY 2002.
Library sharing! I found that from a link in an article ABOUT this file sharing application. The problem is it's not free like this other program i know of, but i think i'll switch over to apple's. Though this program only has the unregistered version for free, it's still good. Apple is only charging money cuz they'd get the pants sued off them if they made it free. Besides, stealing is bad... [glances at his applications folder, and shuts up].


----------



## bubbajim (Mar 4, 2003)

For the last time..... Apple will not promote the theft of music.  They will not let you just download from anyone using their program.  They will however allow you to connect your local network together and share... afterall, you could just as easily make a cd for a roomate.  The technology you are talking about that allows share of iTunes library is referred to as Rendezous.  This technology is a LAN tech, not for the internet.  I suggest that you read up on this technology a little more.

To clear this up:  You are not going to download music from me or anyone else from an Apple provided network via iTunes(PERIOD).  You will download a song for a fee from an archive/portal from Apple.  The songs will be of high quality and will NOT be rookie/n00bie audio rips picked off the newsgroups.  You will be able to share your playlist/library with other comptuers IN YOUR LOCAL NETWORK.  It's a shame people have to compare every business model to napster and other P2P software.  Apple will not provide this as a P2P.


----------



## Dime5150 (Mar 4, 2003)

This idea has not worked so far.

BMG almost collapsed on itself trying to get its service started.

I doubt this will see the light of day. If it does, it won't go very far.


----------



## fryke (Mar 4, 2003)

It really depends. Apple has the style and energy to make a great music service. Steve is also a good talker... Dunno if he could get SONY to participate, though. And if not, that'd be sad... Yet: AAC, quality files: Yes, I'd buy some.

And: Somewhere the music industry HAS to start with electronic services like that. They have been trying before, they are failing, and they'll try harder.

The last WIRED edition had some very good articles about this. Most interesting: The one about Sony and how Apple suddenly invented the Walkman of the 21st century.


----------



## twister (Mar 4, 2003)

Well if iTunes will hook into Apple then in no time someone will figure out how to go iTuens to iTunes.

Maybe that's why that person who made a plug-in to iTunes to share music got in hot water. Maybe he cracked the code and implemented Apples technology before it was ready.


----------



## branded24 (Mar 4, 2003)

I think it's a great idea.  I was thinking a few months ago that they should do something like this.  
The record companies should back this.  It's much better than M$'s plan to make music you CAN'T copy (even in a legit way).
Go Apple!


----------



## Androo (Mar 4, 2003)

you CAN have p2p, they just charge 1 dollar per file! They keep track of each completed download, and send u the bill each month!


----------



## JetwingX (Mar 4, 2003)

ok P2P is crap for downloading songs. if you want a rare song or a forign song, some times you can find it and some times you can't. also, if a person shut down thier computer, you might only get half a song for $1

i figure that apple is going to have a relatively big server with a whole lot of songs, that you will be able to access through iTunes. They will let you listen to 10-30 seconds of the song, and if you like it you can click the little + sign and it will prompt you with a bill (probably with a few choices: pay on-line, monthly bill, or one time bill) and then you will start downloadig the song and ~pow~ it will end up in your library

also, some one tried to make an app the let you turn iTunes in to a P2P but apple got in there ASAP and made them stop the project


----------



## bubbajim (Mar 4, 2003)

Jet is on the right track.  This will more than likely be how it turns out.  I'm not too sure if Apple will house the servers though. I think they will be the middle-man and will just be the front-end of the system.  The vaults will be elsewhere...that way the record companies can keep an eye on their assest.


----------



## Izzy (Mar 4, 2003)

> _Originally posted by banjo_boy _
> *
> 4,998 Amy Mann songs
> *



Aimee Mann 

I think it's a great idea myself, I'd be game for a service such as this.  My only worry is what would happen if my computer crashed and I lost the songs I downloaded.  Would there be some kind of record of the transaction in my name so I could re-download the song or would I have to re-purchase it?  I know that this might lead to some opening for fraud, but it would be a shame to download a bunch of songs and then lose them to a crash or other computer fluke.


----------



## macridah (Mar 5, 2003)

i might try it out if this is true.  i do hate when i get half a song,  theres some glitches, the beginning or end is cut off or it's a low recording.  also maybe you could get all the songs with the same quality (128 or 192) so when you make a CD, all the songs have the same quality.  It's hard to get perfect downloads for all the songs you like, possible but takes time.

Also, 16 songs would cost you ~16 bucks but how many times do you buy a CD when you like all the songs ?

JMHO


----------



## Randman (Mar 5, 2003)

If Apple handles the service much as the way Audible.com has with audio books and spoken-word material, then it has more than a better chance of working.

  For those who don't know, Audible offers 2 (affordable) monthly subscriptions. For $15 a month, I get one audio book to download and a newspaper/magazine subscription that you can get on weekdays (NY Times and MacWorld are among the selections).

 I can play on my iPod or iTunes or burn onto a CD. And I can go online and check my library and re-download if needed. I also have the option of purchasing additions material.
  If Apple were to follow this practice, say you pay $15 a month (hopefully .mac members would get some additional perk), and you can download 15 songs.
  It's safe, clean and easy. And it doesn't eat up much space on the drive.

   And if Apple were to adopt this method, not only could Mac users download for iTunes/iPod, but peecee users could download for whatever mp3 player they use (again give the Mac users a little extra such as lyrics or album covers in the download) and even PDA users such as on the Tungsten T could download songs as well.

   The technoology is out there, the business model is out there. The biggest hurdle is convincing the dinosaur record labels to think different. And it would again give Apple a big jump into the lifestyle market that M$ seems to have its eye on.


----------



## Mills (Mar 5, 2003)

The article in question:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-music4mar04001448,1,2023391.story

---------------------------------------------
Top executives at the major record companies have finally found an online music service that makes them excited about the digital future -- but it's only for Macs.

The new service was developed by Apple Computer Inc., sources said Monday, and offers users of Macintoshes and iPod portable music players many of the same capabilities that already are available from services previously endorsed by the labels. But the Apple offering won over music executives because it makes buying and downloading music as simple and non-technical as buying a book from Amazon.com.

"This is exactly what the music industry has been waiting for," said one person familiar with the negotiations between the Cupertino, Calif., computer maker and the labels. "It's hip. It's quick. It's easy. If people on the Internet are actually interested in buying music, not just stealing it, this is the answer."

 That ease of use has music executives optimistic that the Apple service will be an effective antidote to surging piracy on the Internet, sources said.

Other legitimate music services have cumbersome technology and pricing plans -- motivated in part by the labels' demands for security -- that make them much harder to use than unauthorized online services, such as the Kazaa file-sharing system.

Although no licensing deals have been announced, sources close to the situation say at least four of the five major record companies have committed their music to the Apple service. It could be launched next month.

As promising as the new service is, however, there is a big limitation. Apple's products account for just a sliver of the total computer market -- less than 3% of the computers sold worldwide are Macs. The vast majority of the potential audience for downloadable music services uses machines that run Microsoft Corp.'s Windows software.

An Apple spokeswoman declined to comment on the service Monday, as did representatives from the five major record corporations -- Sony Corp.'s Sony Music Entertainment, Vivendi Universal's Universal Music Group, AOL Time Warner Inc.'s Warner Music Group, Bertelsmann's BMG division and EMI Group.

The new service is so important to Apple Chief Executive Steve Jobs that he personally demonstrated it to top executives at all five companies, sources said. More than a dozen music executives have visited Apple since last summer and came away enthusiastic.

The executives also like the massive marketing plan designed by Jobs to educate consumers about the service.

The plan contrasts sharply with Apple's previous marketing campaign for Macs, which rankled many music executives who felt it promoted piracy. Apple's advertisements were emblazoned with the mantra "rip, mix, burn," referring to the computers' ability to copy songs and record them onto CDs.

Although the iPod has been hailed by many critics as the best portable music player on the market, Mac users have been overlooked by most of the label-backed online music services, including Pressplay, MusicNet and Listen.com Inc.'s Rhapsody.

As a result, Mac users may find it easier to make unauthorized, free copies of songs through an online file-sharing service like LimeWire than to buy a copy through a label-sanctioned service. Apple hopes to change that situation with its new service, which is expected to be included in an updated edition of the iLife package of digital music, photo and movie software.

Sources said Apple will make the songs available for sale through a new version of iTunes, its software for managing music files on Macs. Users will be able to buy and download songs with a single click and transfer them automatically to any iPod they've registered with Apple.

Rather than make the songs available in the popular MP3 format, Apple plans to use a higher fidelity technology known as Advanced Audio Codec.

That approach allows the songs to be protected by electronic locks that prevent them from being played on more than one computer. Still, sources say, Apple wants to enable buyers to burn songs onto CDs. That feature would effectively remove the locks.

That's been a sticking point for executives at Sony, sources said. The other four major record companies, however, appear ready to license their music to the new service.

No details were available on the price of the service, although one source said it would be competitive with other services in the market. Pressplay, for example, charges just under $10 a month for unlimited downloads, plus about $1 for each song that can be burned to CD or transferred to a portable device.


----------



## Cat (Mar 5, 2003)

Sounds good... now let's wait and see!


----------



## Randman (Mar 5, 2003)

Any word on when this could see the light of day?


----------



## toast (Mar 5, 2003)

A former Apple developer wrote iCommune, which is an iTunes plugin to share your music over a network. Maybe


----------



## sheepguy42 (Mar 5, 2003)

Considering how aggressive Apple's latest business marketing has been, it would make sense for them to throw this whole setup on a bunch of  Xserves, loaded w/ tons of storage. Considering the filesize advantage AAC has over MP3, this could be feasable. Also, as far as offering the service even in part to PC users, are there any good, free apps for AAC audio? I really don't know, but if not that would be an excuse for Apple to exclude PC users entirely, at least for a while. I think the point about following the Audible model is a good one, esp. since Apple already pushes the advantages of that service for Mac users. Maybe that was just to get us used to the idea? Anyway, if the Record companies really like it that much, then maybe this is the best blow Apple can make to DRM tech, and all of its associated evils. If Apple gets those companies on its "Digital Lifestyle" bandwagon, they might be tempted to leave M$, Palladium, and DRM behind as a distant, bad memory. And just think of how many switchers Apple would get now, now that people can legally download (for a fee) any song they want, rather than a whole CD, and it takes up less space on their Mac HD than MP3's take on their PC HD, and the songs sound better on their Mac!

Some ideas for marketing ploys:
discounted mixes- for example, $30 gets you 40 songs that are good party music, a 'party pack.' Or a similar 'DJ Pack' for a Junior High dance (where DJ's tend to suck). With such a pack, a school would just need the sound equipment (Speakers, amps) but use a Mac as the source of the music, with digital crossfades and and...
.....[Brain explodes from too much pressure from too many ideas flowing in too fast]


----------



## twister (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by toast _
> *A former Apple developer wrote iCommune, which is an iTunes plugin to share your music over a network. Maybe? *



I knew it.  Somone was giving us a sign.


----------



## gwynarion (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> *As far as gwynarion's suggestion of charging per minute, this would not be fair to classical music fans, among others. Besides, I get just as much enjoyment out of BROTHER's "It's All Good" (close to 3 minutes) as I do their "Romp & Circumstance" (over 6 minutes). I feel they are of roughly equal value, so why should I pay twice as much just because one is longer (Don't I suffer enough having to wait for it to download longer?  ).*


On the contrary, I think that it would be perfectly fair to expect fans of classical music (of which I am one) to pay more for longer songs.  After all, don't we still pay roughly the same amount for a CD that is the same length as other genres but contains fewer songs?  What we go into the store and pay for a CD is much more closely related to the length of the audio on it then it is to the number of tracks.  Now perhaps we could hope to see different pricing levels: from 35¢ or 40¢ per minute for current, popular songs down to 20¢ to 25¢ per minute for older music.

On a tangent I really hope that if this system becomes reality it would spur the record companies to open up their archives of no longer published music to electronic purchase.  Looking at my current music collection, at least half of it is made up of songs from albums that it is no longer possible to buy (new).  Furthermore, because of lower production and distribution costs it should make it a bit easier for small labels to compete.  I also think that such a distribution channel would make it possible to offer music that never makes it to an album such as live concerts.  Often these are recorded and archived anyway, so why not let the public buy them?  If you go to a concert and like it you can go online a few nights later and download it.


----------



## gwynarion (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> *Also, as far as offering the service even in part to PC users, are there any good, free apps for AAC audio? I really don't know, but if not that would be an excuse for Apple to exclude PC users entirely, at least for a while.*


This might herald the appearance of iTunes for Windows, though that seems unlikely since the iPod for Windows would have been just as good an opportunity of not better.  Perhaps instead we would see Apple working with a Windows developer to modify an existing player or create a new one.  Maybe there would even be a need for that Windows developer to license something from Apple   Maybe it would be Microsoft


----------



## edX (Mar 5, 2003)

> Often these are recorded and archived anyway, so why not let the public buy them?  If you go to a concert and like it you can go online a few nights later and download it.



that would be a great idea!! i doubt it will happen, but it's a great idea!!


----------



## sheepguy42 (Mar 5, 2003)

Of course, this might piss off people who bought Toast Ti or something smilar to port their vinyl albums to CDs or just MP3s. Let's see, for possibly less than they spent (depending on # of songs they want and the value of the time they save) they could now simply download, for $.99 a song, the few songs from each album they actually like. 
gwynarion- I have often found Classical music CDs to be cheaper (gotta know where to look) than current rock albums, or classic rock, or the Celtic rock I listen to. Probably because there is less of a demand, maybe because it wasn't necesarily done by a big-name orchestra or whatever, but still cheaper. However, on your tangent, I agree with and like the possibility of smaller labels having a better chance to compete on this new service. As I mentioned I listen to Celtic rock, including Seven Nations, Great Big Sea, BROTHER (really mongrel rock), Blackthorn, Neil Anderson, and others. Many of these are difficult to get songs of online, and often I only want a couple of songs from each album. Now more people could be exposed in much the same fashion as mp3.com's "Similar Artist" search.


----------



## Mills (Mar 5, 2003)

This format's not quite as 'apple' as some of you seem to think. I remember testing the format about 2-3 years ago on a pc, sonique was the main AAC player as I recall. Plenty of convertors at least.


----------



## shatfield1529 (Mar 5, 2003)

One tiny question that nobody's really hit on:

What if you accidentally delete one of the tracks that you bought using this service; is it assumed that you'd be able to download it again, free of charge? In other words, would Apple keep a list of all of the songs you bought and accordingly allow you to have unlimited downloads of any song you purchased?

Just throwing that little nugget of curiousity out there.


----------



## edX (Mar 5, 2003)

huh, i dunno, what happens when you scratch your cd, or leave it in the car and let it warp?

i don't think the concept of backups and personal responsiblity will change much. i'm sure apple will issue some kind of password to your purchase and you'll have at least a window of time to redownload in case of broken connections and such. just as you have a window of time to return a faulty cd to the store. everything else you buy and download on the net seems to work this way with few issues.


----------



## dave17lax (Mar 5, 2003)

> _Originally posted by banjo_boy _
> * I will have a very hard time getting music off of it though. I am a bluegrass boy. Most bluegrass is on independent labels. *



Yeah I want some Gourds.


----------



## JetwingX (Mar 5, 2003)

-Off topic questions-

What file format are DVD-A(udio) songs in

can you play a DVD-A on your mac

(duno cuz i have never tried)


----------



## Randman (Mar 5, 2003)

> What if you accidentally delete one of the tracks that you bought using this service; is it assumed that you'd be able to download it again, free of charge?



Well, if Apple does follow the Audible format (or something similar, maybe even like some websites where you can download mobile ringtones and screensavers), you have an online archive library when you log on. It helps you keep track of your account and what you've downloaded. 
  The archive at Audible keeps material on hand for a few weeks or so, in case you do need to re-download.
   And don't forget, you'd still be able to burn the songs onto a CD yourself.
  I would think that if you couldn't burn a CD or make a suitable back-up in a reasonable amount of time, then you should have to repay (just a simple buck) to download.


----------



## Ricky (Mar 6, 2003)

Interesting.  Don't knock $.99, people.  You pay that much for cell phone ringtones.


----------



## branded24 (Mar 6, 2003)

i ordered an eBook from amazon.com on 12/11/01 and i still have the option to download it again over a year later.  maybe they'll do it like that.  (i'm still waiting for an eBook reader for os x to re-download)


----------



## Ugg (Mar 6, 2003)

I think it is a great idea.  All too often I hear a song I like, find out who recorded it, go to buy it and realize that in order to get the song, I will have to fork out USD 15 or more for an album.  Now maybe I will like the album but maybe not.  Why buy a whole bunch of mediocre songs just to get the one you want. 

The flip side to this is that it is going to change the way artists are paid and they will be the ones to lose out, not the studios.  

So, maybe it is time to change the whole studio system anyway.  There is so much graft between the studios, the radio stations, the concert promoters, ticket sellers, etc, the artists don't get much when all is said and done.  What does it really take to create an album?  Not that much, really, just a well equipped studio, some good sound engineers, a graphic artist and voila!!!  Ok, now you release a few singles to an internet radio station that does not have to pay royalties and has extremely low overhead.  The artist gets airtime depending on listener feedback and the artist has one incredible website for advertising and sales.  The artist doesn't have to have a fortune in inventory sitting in some music store waiting to be sold.  Or, maybe you create some music kiosk where you burn your own cds with the music and artists you want.  Each song can be transferred a finite amount of time before it loses its quality.

Personally I think this is the only way to go.  The studios have made megabucks from cds, new groups are "created" like tatu, not born and  when is the last time you heard an anti establishment song.........  

The only way to resolve the issue is to get the studios out of the picture.  IMHO


----------



## gwynarion (Mar 6, 2003)

> _Originally posted by sheepguy42 _
> *gwynarion- I have often found Classical music CDs to be cheaper (gotta know where to look) than current rock albums, or classic rock, or the Celtic rock I listen to.*


I've found the same to be the case, which is why I suggested that they might use a variable rate for different kinds of music, just as they have different prices for different CDs.


----------



## Randman (Mar 6, 2003)

At $1 a song (if that's what it will be), a variable price format seems as if it would be a lot of extra clutter for a minority of users. Why make things more complicated?
   But... if you're really into doing that, why not charge $.98 for a song, then the other 2 cents can be donated to this website to keep it running.   Sorry if being a little cheeky, but c'mon, it's a buck a song. Get some friends and share songs via a burned CD and you further reduce the price.
  The simpler the plan, the better the chance it has of working.


----------



## Quicksilver (Mar 7, 2003)

I think it is a true part of the digital hub and a perfect way for somone to switch.


----------



## fryke (Mar 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Randman _
> *The simpler the plan, the better the chance it has of working. *


I can only agree with that. I want to know what anything costs in advance. A simple setup like 'A buck for a song' sounds perfect.


----------



## Quicksilver (Mar 7, 2003)

Next is Video & DVD's, I hope. i wonder how micro$oft will be feeling.


----------



## djbeta (Mar 7, 2003)

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE APPLE LET THIS BE TRUE.... $.99 A SONG.. !!!

this is  NOT too expensive...  go ahead and try to make a song, my friend, then tell me you want to sell it to me for $.99

hmmph.


----------



## JetwingX (Mar 7, 2003)

NO 99¢ SONGS I HATE THAT STUPID NUMBER. THAT IS THE ONE THING THIS COUNTRY NEEDS TO GET AWAY FROM!!!
(ok i am done with may rant)
make it a dollar !


----------



## Gedankenspiel (Mar 10, 2003)

Let's put aside the discussion around price - I am more concerned about Apple diversifying its' product and service offering even more. Most business that loose their focus and core business end up having to take a big loss at some point. This can only mean one of two things:

1. Apple desperately needs to ramp up revenues and is willing to take the risk with yet another online service. Hopefully they will make the value proposition more clear and - as much discussed on this board - makes sure that pricing is attractive unlike its' .mac offering.

2. MacOSX will soon run on Intel processors and Apple NEEDS to diversify because hardware revenues will likely decline and software revenues increase. This could mean a shift in Apple's overall business strategy. Less hardware, => less inventory => less cost. 

I personally would like to see Apple stick to hardware and the software they have. 

Cheers,
G


----------



## g/re/p (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Inline_guy _
> *The LA Times is saying that Apple is making a napster like service where you will pay one dollar  to download a song in ACC format.  You could burn it, or put it on your iPod, or just listen to it on your computer!
> 
> What do you think?  If it is true, then I am excited about it.  I would go for it in a flash.
> ...




1. if this is really true, it could be an      
    indication that apple is desperate.
2. $1 a song is way too much - 50 cents a  
    song would be more reasonable and i    
    would pay that.
3. Would the service be the same crappy
    quality we have come to expect from
    .mac ?? 
   (**cough** **sarcasm** **cough**)


----------



## fryke (Mar 10, 2003)

Infinite Loop. 

The price has been discussed on page one of this thread, too. Please read some of those arguments, too...

1 USD per song is certainly not too much to ask if compared to a CD single or even an album of which you might not like every track.


----------



## gwynarion (Mar 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by g/re/p _
> *1. if this is really true, it could be an indication that apple is desperate.*


Or it could be an indication that Apple has looked at the market, seen a void, and decided that there was a golden opportunity to be siezed by whichever company or individual could prove to the record labels that they had the resources and the business model to exploit it properly.  Personally, I think this sort of thing is right up Apple's alley.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 12, 2003)

I know I'm joining this thread late, but Yahoo news seems to have an item about this:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tm...=/ap/20030306/ap_on_hi_te/apple_music_service


**GRATUITOUS GRAMMATIC NITPICK**

Not picking on anyone in particular, just a general pet peeve about something I see a lot on the web:

"loose" and "lose" are two different words.  

lose: verb: to fail to keep, sustain, or maintain <lost my balance>

loose: adjective: free from a state of confinement, restraint, or obligation 

The two things are not synonymous.  You cannot "loose" your focus.  Now granted, there IS an archaic verb form of "loose" - ("He hath loosed the fateful lightning...") - which means "to turn loose".   But it's not likely anyone is worried that apple will 'turn loose' it's focus.  
(END NITPICK)


----------



## evildan (Mar 12, 2003)

Okay listen up children...

If John has an iPod, and he subscribes to Apple's service of a $1/song, how much will it cost for John to fill up his iPod?

Submit your answers by filling in the entire circle of the paper in front of you.


----------



## twister (Mar 12, 2003)

evildan if someone wants to buy an entire ipod full of songs (at about $1 per song) that's their issue.  You don't have to use this serivce to fill up an iPod. Go to the store and buy your music.  But for those of us who want songs but not a whole CD this is great.


----------



## chevy (Mar 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by evildan _
> *Okay listen up children...
> 
> If John has an iPod, and he subscribes to Apple's service of a $1/song, how much will it cost for John to fill up his iPod?
> ...



I currently have 1.5 G of music on my iMac, all from paid CD. This represents a lot of money, but that's the music i like. And I'll pay for it like I pay for .mac and I pay to buy my Mac because nothing is for free. Only dreaming is free.


----------



## brianleahy (Mar 12, 2003)

IF John buys 200 songs at $1 a piece, he'll spend $200 and get 200 songs he likes.

If John buys 10 CDs at $20 a piece, he'll spend $200, but be lucky to get 20 or 30 songs he likes!

If John steals music, he can have unlimited songs for free, but then, that's kind of the definition of theft, is it not?   

However, it seems to me that this casts no legitimate doubt on the $1/song concept.


----------



## greenmonkey32 (Mar 13, 2003)

Does anyone have any idea when apple will announce what cool stuff they will make next?


----------



## twister (Mar 13, 2003)

soon i hope


----------



## rhale1 (Mar 14, 2003)

Would there be a monthly fee on top of the $1??


----------



## twister (Mar 14, 2003)

i hope not.  And i'm so ready.  It seems that theres lots of good new songs out that i want.


----------



## Randman (Mar 15, 2003)

I think it would be more likely that there would be a range of monthly subscriptions. Saw you pay $20 a month, you get 20 downloads. You need more, you pay extra in chunks. 

It could have a buy-as-you-go format, but I think that would be trickier as far as tracking and archiving downloads as well as maintaining buyers' info. I'll still be very surprised if it doesn't follow some Appleified version of audible.com


----------



## shatfield1529 (Mar 15, 2003)

What would be really cool is if this music service were integrated into iTunes 4; for instance, have a button next to the Equalizer and Visuals buttons at the bottom of the iTunes window which brings up a iTunes browser that you can use to search/browse all that the service will have to offer.

A web browser based service would be okay, I suppose, but it wouldn't be nearly as sleek as integration into iTunes, don't you think?


----------



## mr. k (Mar 15, 2003)

Im POSITIVE that if apple developed this type of serveice it would be based in iTunes if not both iTunes and the web.  Apple doesn't offer photo printing or custom book making by means of a website, it uses them directly through iPhoto.  It would fit well into the iApps digital hub theme.  Rip Mix Burn would change to Mix, download, burn.  
I think it would be an interesting service, but so far all of the pay for what you download services  have been too complicated and not had enough major labels behind them and failed.  Plus, it is MUCH easier to open a P2P application and download a song.  
Apple would have to have enough selection at the right price, and then there would be a great upside to the service.  You would have a cheap, legal alternative to downloading the song you heard on mtv the other day.  It would be fast, easy, and integrated into your an application you already use frequently.

And further about MS type DRM, what do you guys think?  Will apple somehow protect the music?  Personally I think that would be the downfall of the system.  It would make it hard, you couldn't have copies of the song on your mp3 player and burn them to CD's frequently.  Personally I burn a new CD for every long trip I take.  If I couldn't do that, "screw ams, im about to go steal music."


----------



## shatfield1529 (Mar 15, 2003)

Well, when Apple released the iPod, the only DRM implemented on it was a sticker (easily removable) that said "Don't steal music".

Jobs has said multiple times that music piracy is a social issue, not a technical issue, and it will be treated by Apple as such. Meaning that Apple will speak against pirating music but not prevent your computer or software from running pirated music. Nice, right?

The odd thing is, the recording industry has praised Apple's/Jobs' stance in this regard. And yet M$ continues with Palladium.

Odd, don't you think?


----------



## Randman (Mar 16, 2003)

> I want to convert my Audible books to MP3s, so I can play them on my MP3 CD Player. How can I do this?
> _	Answer
> _	Audible uses security technologies, including encryption, to protect purchased programs. While the more typical MP3 files contain the same kind of audio data, they are not protected in this way. You will not be able to convert the Audible format to MP3 because of this encryption. The measures taken by Audible are required to protect both the intellectual property rights of our Content Providers as well as the Authors. Audible's secure distribution system prevents a customer from passing along duplicate digital audio files to another listener.
> Audible created and employs a proprietary technology solution for distributing copyright-secure audio files that can be downloaded or streamed from audible.com. Audible's secure distribution system prevents a customer from passing along duplicate digital audio files to another listener.
> In the future, Audible intends to utilize other compression-decompression and security technologies upon the development and adoption of an industry standard, while continuing to ensure the secure distribution of intellectual property from audible.com. Audible's preferred speech codec is licensed from VoiceAge Corporation.



The above is from audible.com. Not to beat a dead horse on it, but I cn't see Apple re-inventing the wheel here. It's the same legal issues, but audible allows you to download, put in iTunes/iPod (or various pc platforms including some pdas) or burn it to a cd.
  Now the aa format sounds find on spoken word and a little background music, but does anyone have an idea on how music would sound in such a format?


----------



## sheepguy42 (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by shatfield1529 _
> *A web browser based service would be okay, I suppose, but it wouldn't be nearly as sleek as integration into iTunes, don't you think? *


If you follow Apple's HotNews page, you might notice that MacOS X's Java capabilities were just updated, and Apple claims that Safari is the best browser to view Java content in on a Mac. Now, Apple also announced, shorlty after Safari's PB first came out, that they would provide documentation to use Safari's rendering engine in your own App. Now suppose that Apple integrate's Safari's web engine into iTunes, but the interface for this music download service is a slick (or sleek, your choice), Aqua-fied Java applet that runs great on Macs (proving, at least to consumers, that Java really does work great on Mac). It could happen, especially since one of the focuses of the Java update was "increased security."


----------



## shatfield1529 (Mar 16, 2003)

I can dig that.


----------



## TommyWillB (Mar 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by moav _
> *... Apple will not have any overhead, the record companies need not have any fancy packaging, and lastly the consumer supplies the're own media.*


*Huh?!?

The the CD media is NOT the most expensive part of a CD.  Not even close.

The $ for a CD is the MUSIC and the physical delivery. The cover art is more than the media. And don't forget the licensing for the musicians.

And if this is going to be downloaded, someone's got to build and host the servers. That is big $$$ in 24/7 data center & bandwidth charges... Don't forget the infrastructure to accept payments, and to support the folks who can't make this work.

... and do you really want the songs with no liner notes?*


----------

