[Zitax]

What do you think about the new service of Apple ?
Will let users buy music through a new version of iTunes, very easy with one click.
Dont know the name, I just named it iMusic.
You can read the entire news in latimes.com just do a search for ipod and you will get it.

[jaxxe]

I for one am very much looking forward to it. Happy to see that the labels like it too.

Curious though, which labels, and how many labels have they got signed? Love to hear more info.

[Zitax]

Originally posted by jaxxe:
I for one am very much looking forward to it. Happy to see that the labels like it too.

Curious though, which labels, and how many labels have they got signed? Love to hear more info.

Here's a little about it.

"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."

[-Q-]

Originally posted by Zitax:
Here's a little about it.

"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."

That would definitely qualify as "little about it"

I'll be interested in seeing how it works. One of the big selling points of the Mac so far has been it's openness. If we start going down the path of digital rights management, what happens to our ability to use our computers as we see fit?

[kman42]

http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi...SaMhc4QXBwbGUn

This says it will only let you play the song on the computer that downloaded it. BOOOOOO!!!! I won't use it if that is the case. The is a direct slap in the face of fair use. If I buy it, I want to be able to make as many copies of it as I want so that I can listen to it on my G4, my iBook, my iPod, on a CD in my living room and on a CD in my car. If my hard drive crashes I want it on a CD.

The music industry can't have it both ways. If they want us to pay for downloading music, then we have to be able to use it in a fair way, that includes using it everywhere I want and making as many copies as I want for my use.

kman

[kman42]

Oh yeah. Expect an announcement from Apple soon. They aren't going to let this flounder around for a month now that the major papers have picked it up. This is way bigger than any single Mac hardware announcement becuase it involves a major public debate. I expect Apple to sieze on this with a few web pages dedicated to explaining it.


Just a guess.

kman

[Mediaman_12]

Originally posted by kman42:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi...SaMhc4QXBwbGUn

This says it will only let you play the song on the computer that downloaded it. BOOOOOO!!!! I won't use it if that is the case. The is a direct slap in the face of fair use. If I buy it, I want to be able to make as many copies of it as I want so that I can listen to it on my G4, my iBook, my iPod, on a CD in my living room and on a CD in my car. If my hard drive crashes I want it on a CD.

The music industry can't have it both ways. If they want us to pay for downloading music, then we have to be able to use it in a fair way, that includes using it everywhere I want and making as many copies as I want for my use.

kman

Apple want's you to be able to do this, it's the RAAA that don't.

[Zitax]

Originally posted by kman42:
http://quote.bloomberg.com/fgcgi.cgi...SaMhc4QXBwbGUn

This says it will only let you play the song on the computer that downloaded it. BOOOOOO!!!! I won't use it if that is the case. The is a direct slap in the face of fair use. If I buy it, I want to be able to make as many copies of it as I want so that I can listen to it on my G4, my iBook, my iPod, on a CD in my living room and on a CD in my car. If my hard drive crashes I want it on a CD.

The music industry can't have it both ways. If they want us to pay for downloading music, then we have to be able to use it in a fair way, that includes using it everywhere I want and making as many copies as I want for my use.

kman

Thats the full comment.

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.

[kman42]

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
Apple want's you to be able to do this, it's the RAAA that don't.

I agree. I'm just reporting what I read. Notice I said "the music industry can't have it both ways". I hope this isn't true and that Apple has found a way around the issue.

Personally, I think that if the music service were right most users wouldn't resort to P2P networks (some always will, but not most). If we don't have to subscribe (the way most current systems are set up) and can just pay per song and it is easy, then it would be a viable alternative to P2P. If the threat of the P2P networks decreases, then there is no reason to add stringent DRM to the music files. The only reason to do that is if they haven't found a truly viable alternative.

kman

[kovacs]

Please, please let this work in europe...

[Zitax]

Originally posted by kovacs:
Please, please let this work in europe...

As it will be an online service, I think it will bw worldwide.

[jwblase]

Personally, I would see this as a .Mac only service. No additional charges needed.

JB

[gorickey]

This better be the inevitable "Rendevous" version of iTunes as well....that way, I'll let my friend buy it and just use it through Rendevous.

[kman42]

Originally posted by jwblase:
Personally, I would see this as a .Mac only service. No additional charges needed.

JB

You're going to have to pay for the music! Apple can't absorb the payments to the music industry out of your .mac subscription.

I hope Apple doesn't charge a monthly subscription for this at all. That is why none of the other services are working (among other things). You need to be able to stream a song from their site so that you can listen before you buy and then you should just be charged per song or per album. And it should be a reasonable price LESS THAN THE COST OF A CD since the record companies don't have to pay for the CD or the packaging or the distribution (presumably Apple is paying the server costs, etc). So something like $0.99/song or $12.99 for an album would be fair. That is a little less than the retail cost of an album ($17.99 here) when purchased in the store.

kman

[mitchell_pgh]

Until the day comes where there is high quality security from the record company all the way down to special decoders in my speakers... we will be able to pirate music.

P.S. Why would we (Mac users) purchase high quality AAC music when we don't even have a high quality music output option (Dobly Digital 5.1 etc.)

I would need fiber to ever consider something like this. And even then, I will be more then happy to continue to use MP3. MP3 isn't the best quality, but for a large majority, it's good enough.

The music industry is starting to get concerned because even joe-dumb off of the street is starting to burn their own music.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That being said, many more people would buy music if it was reasonably priced. I don't consider $17 reasonable when you can almost buy a DVD for the same price.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I like the idea of musicians having to preform live to make $$$'s.

[CaseCom]

The full text of the LA Times article is in the original thread:

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=149079

[Liquidity X]

just read that while it will be aac (mp4) it will not be DRM or what ever the digital rights is so u CAN use it on yer ipod etc.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by kman42:
You're going to have to pay for the music! Apple can't absorb the payments to the music industry out of your .mac subscription.

I hope Apple doesn't charge a monthly subscription for this at all. That is why none of the other services are working (among other things). You need to be able to stream a song from their site so that you can listen before you buy and then you should just be charged per song or per album. And it should be a reasonable price LESS THAN THE COST OF A CD since the record companies don't have to pay for the CD or the packaging or the distribution (presumably Apple is paying the server costs, etc). So something like $0.99/song or $12.99 for an album would be fair. That is a little less than the retail cost of an album ($17.99 here) when purchased in the store.

kman

You consider $1 fair for one song? I consider $12.99 for an album crazy. They should be able to make it more like 75� for a song and $5 fo the album (I would usually go for the album that way).

[dampeoples]

This has been out only a few hours and I'm already confused
If I can play the music on my iMac, iBook, iPod, and burn as many CD's as I want, I'll gladly pay. If not, screw it.

[KidRed]

Originally posted by Liquidity X:
just read that while it will be aac (mp4) it will not be DRM or what ever the digital rights is so u CAN use it on yer ipod etc.

Exactly. Do you think Apple would use a service to buy music files (99� each) that won't work on your $500 iPod? Come on. It may only play on iTunes on the computer that downlaoded it but it will be able to play on iPods.

[xtal]

Here's an interesting wrinkle.

Some say that track/album rates of $0.99/12.99 is fair, and less than CD cost.

Translated to Canadian dollars, the album rate is more than I would pay for an album here in a retail store. Granted, I usually shop at used CD stores, so that drives my cost per CD down to CDN$10-12, which is roughly USD$7-8.

How do you control the fact that international pricing on CDs is quite different? What is reasonable for one country, is expensive for the other?

[nsxpower]

Issues with iMusic:

1. Can only be played on the computer where they were download (mp4 supports DRM so thats a possibility). However, some rumor sites claim that Apple will use ACC (where is that update to iTunes?) that does not?

2. $0.99 -> 100 songs for $99 -> 100 songs is approximately 5-6 CDs @ $22/20� over here. By buying a CD I will always have a "hard" copy of the song, unless Apple's service allows CD burning etc. Still $0.99 (unless more in Europe like everything else Apple) is too expensive to justify using the service.

3. Possibly a very limited selection. I have a feeling it is going to be all Britney Spears, Emimem blah! Stupid rubbish that teenagers care about ... also something that can EASILY be downloaded illegaly, which is probably a better solution considering VERY low life span of these songs.

4. DO I NEED A .MAC ACCOUNT TO USE THIS?

5. I want to choose what quality to download my songs at, since I can not tolerate anything lower then 192 for anything other then preview use (128 is really bottom line).

6. How long will it take for people that do sign up for the service to share their libraries over LimeWire, eDonkey and [insert your favorite P2P app name here]?

To summarize: I am damn curious of what Apple can make of this. I hope I am pleasantly surprised, but so far everyone who's attempted an online pay-for-download service has failed miserably.

[Developer]

At about $0.50 a song or less, I would buy some (if I can play them on all Macs - I would register all Macs with Apple).
At $1 a song plus $10 monthly subscription I would just continue listening to radio and MTV (and buy 1-2 CDs a year).

[kman42]

Well, after reading the actual article this is what I've gleamed as 'most likely' true (since nothing is really true until Steve says it):

1) It will be integrated into iTunes

2) iTunes and iPods will get AAC support

3) We will be able to download songs in AAC and put them on any iPod that we have registered with Apple

4) We will be able to burn CDs


Some notes:

1) Perhaps we will be able to register our Macs with Apple as well as our iPods and transfer the files to all of our Macs

2) If we can burn a CD, then we can always rip that CD into another Mac. This will degrade the quality, but seems fair to me as it won't be any worse than an MP3 downloaded from a P2P network

3) I wonder what the interface will be like. Will it be completely through iTunes or will we click a button that takes us to a web page.

This is how I think pricing and the interface will work. Users pay $10/month for an account or it comes free with your .Mac account (this can be entered into any Mac you own, just like your .Mac account is currently).

THIS MEANS ONE ACCOUNT WILL WORK ON ALL OF YOUR MACS.

There is a new entry in iTunes playlists right below Library called Online Music or something. Click on this and type something in the search box. You then get all of the matches. I see two options here:

a) You can play anything as many times as you want. You can copy it to your personal playlists. If you want a local unlocked version of the song that you can burn or put on your iPod or do anything else with it will cost you $1/song. OR you may be able to put it onto any iPod that is registed at no additional cost, but getting an unlocked copy of the song for burning, etc will cost you a dollar.

b) there is no monthly subscription fee, but there is an account that has to be setup (or your .Mac account). You get the same interface, but you can only listen to 30 seconds of a song. You can then choose to buy a song or an album for some price and you will get a local copy that you can do anything you want with.

I like option (a) or some variant.

kman

[Developer]

Originally posted by nsxpower:
I want to choose what quality to download my songs at, since I can not tolerate anything lower then 192 for anything other then preview use (128 is really bottom line).

AAC compressed audio at 128 kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be ?indistinguishable? from the original uncompressed audio source.

[dampeoples]

Originally posted by nsxpower:
Issues with iMusic:

1. Can only be played on the computer where they were download (mp4 supports DRM so thats a possibility). However, some rumor sites claim that Apple will use ACC (where is that update to iTunes?) that does not?

2. $0.99 -> 100 songs for $99 -> 100 songs is approximately 5-6 CDs @ $22/20? over here. By buying a CD I will always have a "hard" copy of the song, unless Apple's service allows CD burning etc. Still $0.99 (unless more in Europe like everything else Apple) is too expensive to justify using the service.

3. Possibly a very limited selection. I have a feeling it is going to be all Britney Spears, Emimem blah! Stupid rubbish that teenagers care about ... also something that can EASILY be downloaded illegaly, which is probably a better solution considering VERY low life span of these songs.

4. DO I NEED A .MAC ACCOUNT TO USE THIS?

5. I want to choose what quality to download my songs at, since I can not tolerate anything lower then 192 for anything other then preview use (128 is really bottom line).

6. How long will it take for people that do sign up for the service to share their libraries over LimeWire, eDonkey and [insert your favorite P2P app name here]?

To summarize: I am damn curious of what Apple can make of this. I hope I am pleasantly surprised, but so far everyone who's attempted an online pay-for-download service has failed miserably.

1. That's a deal-breaker for me, if I can't do with it what I want, I'll buy CD's
2. To me, not having to go anywhere is worth a little, but again, it's a deal breaker if I can't put the music where I want to.
3. I too, am afraid of this, but I hope some older stuff is put up there at special, say .50 instead of .99 if that's what it's gonna be.
4. That's just silly if they do, I don't see this at all, although I do see a .mac coupon for 10 free songs or something.
5. If it's gonna be AAC, the quality should rise a bit, but I like mine encoded highly as well.
6. This music is on those services already, this is for Paying customers who would enjoy the convienence of not leaving their house.

I think it's gonna survive/die based on the content. Honestly, Britney Spears, etc. Is what sells, so to make it they are gonna have to offer a decent selection of this stuff too

[gorickey]

Originally posted by dampeoples:

4. That's just silly if they do, I don't see this at all, although I do see a .mac coupon for 10 free songs or something.

That would be nice.

[Spliffdaddy]

Sony has already shown us the future of 'computer-based' music. Check out their 'OpenMG Jukebox' software made for use with their portable music devices such as MiniDisc recorders. Here's the basic scheme...

You must first 'import' the track from its ORIGINAL source. This can be a from a CDROM or any music file (mp3,wav,etc).

The import process converts the track to a format (Sony uses AATRAC) that can be 'locked' by preventing its playback on ANY device EXCEPT the device it was originally uploaded to. This will prevent the tracks on the portable device from being shared with another device...because they are useless and cannot be played. The tracks were encrypted during the 'import' process and can only be played by the 'intended' device. This prevents the sharing of tracks (legitimate or otherwise) from the portable device or its storage media.

Once you 'import' a track from its original source, you are allowed 3 'check-outs' to your portable device - after that, you must re-import the original track (to prove you still have the original track and didn't import a friend's CD the last time).


Here's what Apple will do...

offer music tracks in a file format that can be encrypted for playback only on particular devices. for example, the track would play on your Mac and your iPod - but not your friends' Macs or iPods.

You will not be able to easily convert the file to a format that can be shared. Well, it CAN be shared the old-school way by audio line-out to your recording device...in 1:1 realtime, baby. A pure digital copy of the track is something you'll never get, however.

---------------------------------------------------------

edited to add:

Sony makes portable MiniDisc recorders that offer mindblowing features and value. Imagine a $125 machine no bigger than a pack of cigarettes that can (depending on compression) digitally record up to 5 hours of stereo sound from nearly any analog or digital source. It can offer 56hrs of playback on a single AA battery. The storage media is compact, rewriteable, and costs about one dollar.

Unfortunately, these machines are neutered by the all-powerful music industry of which Sony is a MAJOR player. Wanna legally record that concert with your Sony MD recorder and copy the results to CD?

Ha. Silly kid. Grab a beer and a sandwich while you wait for your MD recorder to upload ANALOG sound to your computer via your soundcard's line-in jack. remember, your only other option is AATRAC format - the only format used by Sony MD recorders - which can be uploaded at USB speed to your PC, but is utterly worthless for sharing because its a proprietary file format that only YOUR PC has the 'right' to play.

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Here's what Apple will do...

offer music tracks in a file format that can be encrypted for playback only on particular devices. for example, the track would play on your Mac and your iPod - but not your friends' Macs or iPods.

You will not be able to easily convert the file to a format that can be shared. Well, it CAN be shared the old-school way by audio line-out to your recording device...in 1:1 realtime, baby. A pure digital copy of the track is something you'll never get, however.

Try to sell this to someone that has trouble encoding a CD in MP3 via iTunes... I will work great for honest people that are very computer literate, but what about the other 99.9995% of the population?

[nsxpower]

AAC compressed audio at 128 kbps (stereo) has been judged by expert listeners to be ?indistinguishable? from the original uncompressed audio source.

I was very much aware of that fact and I was talking about MP3. 128 kbps MP3 sounds like [insert your favorite derivation of dung here], it was fine when HD space was limited and P2P networks were just beginning to emerge. Nowdays, we need specific formats such as ACC and OGG that were designed for music encoding - rather then using hacks such as MP3.

Much of my previous post was just speculation on the worst case scenario.
But seriously, a 0.99$ + subscription fee (�monthly/annual?) would be to expensive to justify the 'ability' not to by a CD for just 1 song and pick and choose.

Pick-and-choose is really not an advantage of these services, since selections at some music stores are much better for some specific music genres then any of this services are able to offer. Simply beacause they are limited by a contract w/ a certain label etc.

Bottom line is that CONTENT will drive this service to profitability or eternal damnation (depending on how good/bad it may be). IMHO, if the price is right I may use it BUT I doubt it will be able to satisfy my craving for cutting edge progressive, house, dance, drum'n'bass tracks as well as some of the oldies from the 70's that I like to listen to. Manfred Mann anyone? Also, can I get my J-Pop from that? I am sure I will be able to get my 'mainstream' alternative and rock from the service. BUT that latest [Laterst Rubbish Pop Song Name Here] will still be downloaded from [P2P network name here] at 128 kbps

Further, will this service be limited to Macintosh users? I know Steve has faith in Apple's user base, but it is infinatelly small to achieve economies of scale and hence lower prices. And if that does not happen --- Apple will have to hike up the price of the service to make up for licencing fees involved (and there will be plenty).

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
Try to sell this to someone that has trouble encoding a CD in MP3 via iTunes... I will work great for honest people that are very computer literate, but what about the other 99.9995% of the population?

actually, it's very simple. the software is a breeze for computer illiterate morons. A couple of mouseclicks and your CD is 'imported'. From there you make playlists and decide what gets uploaded to your portable device.

[OAW]

Personally, ever since I purchased the original 5GB iPod I haven't really used CDs at all. At this point, they are nothing more than a delivery mechanism to get the music from the store and ripped into iTunes. Once I've ripped it, it gets downloaded to my iPod which is my "portable" player ... either in the car, at work, or wherever. The original CD then gets tossed into a box somewhere never to see the light of day again. Every now and again my wife might play it on her "boombox" while she's working in the kitchen, but as far as I'm concerned, the CD has outlived it's usefulness by then.

So basically, I'm really looking forward to a service that will have the following characteristics ...

1. Free 30-45 second "preview" streams a la' Amazon.

2. "Brain dead simple" purchase and download to my Mac ... $.99/track or less with an additional discount for a full "album" purchase. No recurring monthly fees!

3. Ability to download music to my iPod with no restrictions.

4. Ability to burn tracks to CD with no restrictions. (Even though I would rarely use this, I still think it should be there).

Of course, if CD burning is enabled, then there's nothing stopping someone from ripping the CD into MP3 form and "sharing" it with the world. However, I just don't think that most people who would pay for such a service would do that. What would be the point? Why pay for something and then give it away to any and everybody for free? IMHO, the diehard "filesharers", "pirates", or whatever you want to call them won't pay for such a service to begin with.

It sounds like Apple is trying to target those people who want the convienence of digital music and are willing to pay for it as well. I for one will be awaiting more details quite anxiously!

OAW

[dfiler]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
actually, it's very simple. the software is a breeze for computer illiterate morons. A couple of mouseclicks and your CD is 'imported'. From there you make playlists and decide what gets uploaded to your portable device.

Zzzzt. But thanks for playing

Importing is usually simple. However, what if the cd drive is in use by the finder or any other program? The eject button in iTunes, on the keyboard, and on the front of the machine all don't work. Nor is there any indication from within iTunes of why a user can't get the drive tray to come out.

Or... what about copy protected discs?

Or... what if your modem is off and/or the tracks are auto-imported with no artist or album data... then try finding those imported tracks.

Yes, iTunes is the best mp3 player out there. However, there are still interface shortcomings that stop novices dead in their tracks.

Back on topic:
I'm quite excited that AAC will be used but for a reason that hasn't been mentioned here yet. If apple were to adopt AAC, then perhaps the ubiquitous mp3 would finally get replaced with a better format. Apple pushed USB and blammo, everything went USB. Hopefully the same thing happens with AAC. Then when you go to pirate music... you'll find better quality encodings...

[C.J. Moof]

Hasn't anybody signed up for Audible? This sounds just like it.

Sign up, buy your content, and it's brought straight into iTunes for you. From there, you have permission to move it to your iPod or burn a CD of it.

Want to share the content? Sorry, it plays on your iTunes/iPod only. Open the .aa file in BBEdit and you'll see your account info embedded into that file- they're customizing the file for each user. So if you were to send it around, you'd be wise to try to strip out your account info, tho I/m sure that won't be good enough.

Personally, I don't find this a problem. I use my iPod and iTunes for my music almost exclusively. Ever since I got it, I've been looking for affordable ways to legally get good quality music into it. Emusic.com isn't bad, tho some of their 128K encodes are lousy. A system that locks the music to my iPod and my computer is fine with me, as long as the prices are low enough to make me accept the minor restriction. I'd buy a lot more albums At $5/ea than $15.

The days of shipping physical media to store digital info are dying- this is the next logical step.

[Chuckit]

Originally posted by OAW:
Of course, if CD burning is enabled, then there's nothing stopping someone from ripping the CD into MP3 form and "sharing" it with the world. However, I just don't think that most people who would pay for such a service would do that. What would be the point? Why pay for something and then give it away to any and everybody for free? IMHO, the diehard "filesharers", "pirates", or whatever you want to call them won't pay for such a service to begin with.

There's only one step removing that from normal CD ripping, and that's not the step that costs money. If pirates are willing to pay for a CD and put it on P2P, I don't see why they wouldn't be willing to pay for a service and put that on P2P as well.

[Fallout]

If this will have stuff that's normally hard to find, be cheap, and allow CD burning, then I'll use it now and then. Otherwise, I'll stick to Kazaa Lite and IRC.

[mitchell_pgh]

There are some additional things that they could do to make the iMusic idea much more appealing.

1) Include nice cover art for all of the files (including all that crap that normally comes with a CD)

2) Include cool extras like a bonus track or a voice track (think DVD commentary track lite) or perhaps a full screen music video (broadband only)

3) Include song specific visuals.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

That being said, what if you burn a CD using this new application, then try to re-encode with an old version of iTunes (like 1.0) and make a high quality MP3 out of it?

I just see way to many loop holes... Unless they use some kind of music recognition application (and nobody is going to try to force that on us)

[STH]

Actually, Apple (and it's customers) is the PERFECT testing playground for the music industry... Apple has a small marketshare and few users compared to the zillions of MS users. Still, it is pretty much a representation of normal computer users on a somewhat smaller scale. By (initially) limiting a music download system to Mac users only there is not that big of a risk and the great opportunity to test such a system in real life... One could think of it as a lab project to study customer behavior.

Most of the people I know (except the geeks) would gladly use such a system. None of the people at work (non IT business) or my family have ever even heard about P2P etc. They would never go through the hassle of seeking downloadable music on Gnutella. But sure enough they listen to samples at Amazon and order the CDs. They would use "iMusic" instantly.

Even I would. I've given up hunting for crappily encoded mp3s as soon as Audiogalaxy went down the drain.

That said: I would pay for downloadable music given that

1) It's fast. I want my 768 DSL to be maxed out.

2) It has a huge selection not only of popular stuff. For that, there's radio and MTV.

3) I can play it in iTunes and on my iPod. No need to burn CDs. For the rare occasions where I need this there will be third party software or unix shells enabling it (that's the geek showing).

5) Availability in Europe!

On a side note:
Imagine what kind of roar would go around the globe if MS announced such a music alliance - download music not only on your PC but take it along as well - just buy a MP3-Player build by MS for $400+!
Boy, we would scream...MS forcing us to buy a MS device... Due to all those different PC brands and components that is a goal that they have yet failed to achieve!

[SpeedRacer]

A couple comments:[list=1][*]iMusic sounds amazing. Don't know about the "go to website X to download, then, import and open file in iTunes" idea, but if browsing of a remote music archive can happen from WITHIN iTunes itself, you've got a very consumer-friendly system in place for selling and distributing digital music.[*]Every form of media importable into the Mac so far has been burnable to external media (CD, DVD, etc). Why would that change now? People want to hear their music on their home stereos and there are currently only so many ways for Average Joe to do that - CD's being the ubiquitous medium. Steve has personally said in a number of interviews that he does not see the computer taking over the living room. And how many consumers want to hook up an iPod to their $5000 HiFi stereo systems through a headphone mini-jack? Even a $500 iPod is a joke when it comes to playback of music in the living room. To make this service useful to the average consumer you HAVE to make the media burnable to CD.[*]Consider the market potential for Apple if they can make this work exclusive to the Mac. Consider the number of applications/uses of a full-fledged, legit, custom-CD burning station. The only place i've heard of this occurring successfully now is in Europe through "Virtual Music Stores". Yet still, there's always been major licensing roadblocks. Make this work successfully on a mainstream computer platform and i think Apple will have created an entirely new (read: massive) market for Macs as digital music POS systems. Make it exclusive to the Mac and you've got precisely what they need to jumpstart Macintosh marketshare (and mindshare!). [/list=1]

Unforunately the hardest part in any major deal like this that very last statement. Exclude M$ (or Sony's own PC's running M$) from a deal like this? Highly doubtful!

Speed

[Superchicken]

I don't mind the whole only on one mac thing... cause I only own one Mac... right now... in the future though I'll be buying a Power Book, and I'll likely wanna be able to put the music on both the power book and my iMac, since my iMac has a 60 Gig HD, and I could use it's processor to play my music instead of my power book.
That said... ultimately, the 1 mac thing wouldn't be KILLER, for me, but it would be nicer if they did something like you have to connect by Firewire or USB to another Mac to exchange the files, or redo the software thing. Of if they made like a key in the software, so that you could transfer that to any Mac you own. Although then they'd likely need to charge in a store for it or something. I'd deffinately like to see them get past the 1 mac thing though.

second, someone correct me if I'm wrong but doesn't AAC mean Advanced Audio Codec? It's not ACC it's AAC.

If the files are in AAC I really wouldn't mind 128kbps because that's pretty good sound quality, quite spiffy, I encode all my mp3s at 160kbps I believe and that's suitable comming out of my crappy RCA quad speakers.
I just REALLY hope they get Tooth and Nail, Forefront, KMG, and the smaller independant Christian Labels on board. I think the Christian music listeners, which believe it or not are a decent segment of the over all market, get screwed by these services a lot, I checked out two the other day, first off only in america BLAH! Second one didn't even have the OC Supertones! They're a Christian Ska(ish) band who are arguably one of the most popular undergroundish bands on the Christian Music Scene. So if all they do is get artists like Audio A and Avalon or some bunk like that you can bet I'll send a SCREAMING feedback to apple. I mean both services I checked out didn't even have Ace Troubleshooter's music!
So long as they get a GOOD VARITY of music they'll be well off, and I think the Christian music sector is a HUGE area that they could grow in. A large chunk of Christians I know are Mac users (my church has 3 Mac users that I know of used to be 4.) And I think if apple does get the large Christian labels on board then that'd be really good... and it shouldn't be hard since most of them are owned by the bigger secular lables... accept tooth and nail who's like 48% owned by the EMI group or so I hear.
So yeah... they'd BETTER get the Christian artists on it.

I'd preffer a pay per download system, just charge it to a credit card, just check with my dad before every download. I'd probably buy more music than I do right now if it were convient there arn't many stores that sell the music I like within walking distance.

But yeah, I think one thing that could REALLY kill this service is if they only get SOME artists.

[OAW]

IMO I don't think the "only play on one Mac" restriction is overly cumbersome. Especially since iTunes will have Rendezvous Support for seamless streaming over the local network! I have my music collection on my iMac, and with the Rendezvous feature of the new iTunes I can have access to my entire collection over my Airport network on my iBook. I really have no desire to physically store the music on more than one Mac. That's what I have my iPod for!

OAW

[Superchicken]

Yeah but when I'm in my dorm room do I really want to plug a network cable into my power book to stream the info off it and onto my iMac? Wouldn't that hog my processor even more than just playing the music on my Mac off the bat?

[koffedrnkr]

when a new cd costs $13-$14 at best buy, why would i want to spend $12 to download the same tracks and then worry whether or not i can listen to them on my mac at work?

i love the idea of downloading music. i'm happy to pay for getting my music that way...but considering the potential restrictions and the fact that there are no material, packing, shipping or promotional costs associated with downloaded music...i think a fee of .50 - .70 per track is much more equitable and realistic.

[dfiler]

What do you make of the mention of iMusic at the bottom of this page? Did they mean to say iTunes?

From the article:
DTS encoded files can be 'burned' to CD by virtually any program including Apple's iMusic...

[OAW]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Yeah but when I'm in my dorm room do I really want to plug a network cable into my power book to stream the info off it and onto my iMac? Wouldn't that hog my processor even more than just playing the music on my Mac off the bat?

I'm not sure since I haven't seen this feature for myself. I don't know if the "server" plays the file and just sends the audio signal over the wire ... or if the "client" plays the file remotely located on the server. I suspect the latter, but I don't think there would be an appreciable CPU hit with this setup. No different than running accessing a file on the network.

OAW

[sandman]

Personally I don't think there will be a flat rate for songs. Just like pay-per-view movies there will be fluctuation in prices. Think about charging the same price for a brand new, very popular song, as an 8 year old song that never even hit the radio.

Hopefully the MAX will be $1/song, and then flucuate from about 40 cents on up to a dollar.

[Gee4orce]

Not really OX related to I'm moving it to the lounge

[Mac Zealot]

My say on this?

It's too expensive. $10 a month AND $1 a song is overkill.

If it was $0.50 a song maybe 0.75 and no fee I'd be ecstatic.

In fact even $1 wouldn't be too bad if there was no monthly fee. That's pure Bull.

For pennies more I can haul my lazy arse to the store, get some exercise, and get the real CD.

and when the RIAA gets on my arse for 'stealing' I'd have CDs to prove I own the stuff.

But I agree, the ipod is great, I just think that you should 1. be able to back this stuff up, and 2. maybe a way to restore it from ipod.

If there's something that monitors your downloads and allows you to re-download a couple times later on that's cool, too.

[Scifience]

Originally posted by dfiler:
Or... what if your modem is off and/or the tracks are auto-imported with no artist or album data... then try finding those imported tracks.

Modem? People still use those?
Proudly posted on a 3mbps broadband link.

[kingskel]

Originally posted by Superchic[k]en:
Contrary to popular belife...

Don't want to be sarcastic, but I just think it's funny that someone that is interested in Christian music doesn't spell "belief" correctly... "Belife" actually sounds like a good name for an X-rock band...