$1 a song by Apple

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

:D
 
Originally posted by toast
A former Apple developer wrote iCommune, which is an iTunes plugin to share your music over a network. Maybe?
Click to expand...

I knew it. Somone was giving us a sign. ;)
 
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? ;) ).
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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 :D
 
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.
Click to expand...

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

Yeah I want some Gourds.
 
-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)
 
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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)
:D
 
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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top