$1 a song by Apple

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
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.:p
 
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].
 
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.
 
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.
 
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. ;)
 
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.
 
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!
:D
 
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!
 
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
 
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.
 
Originally posted by banjo_boy

4,998 Amy Mann songs
Click to expand...

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