MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

Go Apple!

Wow...

XD

Way to go Steve!!!!

Haha! Steve made them suck it!!

...now where's that new ad campaign? I really hope the new apple store t-shirts and posters weren't what he was talking about. I want to see some f'ing COMMERCIALS!

"Mr Jobs last year publicly labelling the industry 'greedy,'"

Is that fair? I mean it's not like they have a history of greed and corruption. Oh wait, the recording industry? I thought they were talking about the big four clothing labels. Oops, that's wrong too.
Man, it pays to have better reading comprehension.
Did WB ever try their own iToons Store?

HUGE win for Apple.

Yeh-heh-heh-hehessssssssssss . . . what a bunch of greedy whores! It doesn't surprise me. Besides, those Warner bastards tried to skim my profits from my Come Poop With Me! CD and I'll poop on them til de day I die.

But really, this is good news. I swear -- these record companies are caving faster these days than Starr Jones' chest.

My nipples are exploding with pleasure. Job's done.

I'm wondering when downloads will include lyrics, insert notes, etc. That's when we'll see an additional cost, whereas the Music labels will only gain profit, as they make this stuff already.

Dare I mention the same truth posted when this controversy first began...

What are the labels going to do, walk away from tremendous profits?

Apple should now remove Warner Music Groups songs off of iTunes, unless they lower their pricing.

So much for MTV and Microsift vaporware. Johnny Cochran says: If you can't compete, Apple will defeat.

A big win for the consumer.
It's not illegal to "be" a monopoly in the U.S., it is only illegal to abuse that power. Not that the ITMS is a monopoly, I think it only qualifies as having a lot of clout, it's just good to see that power being used to benefit the consumer.

Hey Real R:
Try downloading pearLyrics widget. As you listen to a song in iTunes, it finds the lyrics on the internet and copies the lyrics into the info properties for the song.

You don't know the history of online music sales. I do.

Way to go Apple!

Guess those labels finally saw the error of their greedy ways.

(I don't want to hear the subscription crybabies! Pay the darn 99¢ you cheap basterds!!)

iTMS still only runs 128kbps encoded tracks. Who cares whether the songs are at .99 or 1.20 a piece as long as they sound crap with good equipment. I bet those "scientific" tests where made with half deaf people - or tehy were made using Apple's piece o shite iPod earphones. 192 kbps AAC and I'm doing some shopping, otherwise I'll just continue to rip from CDs. This issue really bugs the hell out of me, why aren't there any polls about this? Oh, and I so love it when some people claim the encoding hisses and oddities are only issues for hidef snobs, ultra sensitive people etc. I guess I just didn't ruin my ears on those raves. It's also an issue that doesn't really fit Apple's usual quality measures, I mean, since when did Apple serve people with something that's "good enough" or "okay-ish", say?

What is to prevent the record labels from allowing variable pricing for all the other download sites, and just release all new material to them first then after the song has run its popularity, release it to iTunes. That way the labels get their variable pricing, and bypass Steve's control. If new music is only available on WMA sites for the first few weeks then that will tend to boost their popularity, again sticking it to Steve. Maybe I shouldn't put this bug in the labels ear.

since when did Apple serve people with something that's "good enough" or "okay-ish"

OS9?

since when did Apple serve people with something that's "good enough" or "okay-ish"

The Performa line?

shipwithsails,

What is to prevent the record labels from allowing variable pricing for all the other download sites, and just release all new material to them first then after the song has run its popularity, release it to iTunes?

Nothing, except the contract. Do you think Steve Jobs is an idiot? He dictated the contract terms, on that you can bet, and he dictated them to benefit Apple.

The also-rans will continue to shrink and some will die soon.

I sent Apple an email about their 128kbps encoding and this was their response.


Thank you for contacting the iTunes Music Store.

Thank you for your suggestion. All music purchased from the iTunes Music Store is encoded using MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format at 128kbps, a high-quality format that rivals CD quality.

We welcome your comments and suggestions regarding the iTunes Music Store. To ensure your feedback is considered for possible product enhancements or additions to the iTunes Music Store, please visit the Feedback page at <http://www.apple.com/feedback/itunes.html>.

Sincerely,  

Robert
The iTunes Music Store team
http://www.apple.com/support/itunes/ww/


That rivals CD quality??? Bwahahahahaha. Come on Apple.

>That rivals CD quality??? Bwahahahahaha. Come on Apple.>

Joe Frasier rivaled Mohamed Ali, lost to him though.

Ampar, you got me there. Can't agree with Joop tho, I'd say OS9 was really sweet. Damn, I still miss Action Utilities and Click There It Is, just to name some things missing in OSX. But that's too OT for this thread to bitch about.

A huge win in strong-arming your "partners"! And with that, I'm sure the labels will exit Apple's grip at their earliest opportunity, just like the TV networks. Microsoft is smiling.
Case in point, one can now download last night's TV episodes directly off the network TV sites without paying a dime. Everyone but the Apple sheep will be laughing at paying $1.99 per episode, commercials or not. Internet media will NOT depend on Apple for distribution, mark my words.

shitwitsails,

Because no one would buy it. It would debut at spot 888 on the hot 1000 download charts.

if they want to variable price songs, than they should create there own music downloading system. ohh dam, they did and FAILED!

since when did Apple serve people with something that's "good enough" or "okay-ish

Those dual-OS Macs that could run Windows in the 90s?

since when did Apple serve people with something that's "good enough" or "okay-ish"



the eMac
The one button mouse
The performa line (it needed to be said again)
iChat 1.0 (it was basically just AIM with an aqua Skin... its only advantage was that it could integrate with Address Book)
OS X-X.1
Apple Works (it was great when it first came out, then got outdated quickly)
The Power Book Duo (do you remember that one?)
That one TV commercial for the PowerMac G5

The Duo was awesome, I loved mine!

eMac was sweet too if you wanted something hard to break or steal. TankMac! And in its day it was actually faster (a little) than the equivalent iMac.

M.Landau - Look, I'm not saying the iTMS downloads are Superbit high-definition quality, but honestly - I don't know what you're listening to. I am an audio professional, been in the business for 20 years. And while the 128-bit AAC downloads aren't perfect, they are a great value for the size and quality.

I mean, seriously, how long do you think most people will wait to download a song, much less an album? And how much bandwidth do you think Apple can use per song and still keep its few pennies of profit?

And really - and I'm being careful here, because I am NOT calling you a high-definition audio snob - but seriously, I don't think most people can tell the difference between an AAC 128 track and a CD unless they compared them side by side. Again, depends somewhat on the track, but with most pop/rock/rap/R&B;- it just isn't likely.

And I actually play these things over a large sound system in public, as well as in my car, through headphones, etc. While I can hear the occasional artifacts and definition problems, it certainly isn't to the degree that I consider it unpleasant to listen to.

If the quality was significantly worse, or the cost to improve it significantly was nominal, then I think that might happen, but I think Apple has hit a very fine balance on this issue. In other words, to 98% of people, it's not "okay-ish", it's "Very good".

AND FOR THOSE

Who need to know the truth behind variable prices, I suggest this excellent read.

http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2005/11/18.html

MDW: "people" "Oh my god! Solent Green is people!"

Here's what really great about the iTunes Music Store: it is a moral middle earth.

I can buy a tune I don't already own at 128 mbps, know the artist was compensated, and then go steal it with a free conscience at 192, or whatever I can find.

Everyone wins.

The new morality.

While I don't share the same venomous tone as Mr Landau, I have to agree. It's time for iTMS to bump the bitrate of the music. Enough people have fat pipes now that it isn't going to take much longer to download. I think we deserve to have 192 since thats near CD quality.

I wish you iTunes customers could hear the detail I'm hearing in the studio. If it was up to me, you would be buying lossless for not much more than $0.99.

The great thing about having spent adolescence listening to AC/DC and Floyd at full volume and sticking your head into the speaker cones at GWAR concerts is that 128kbps sounds pretty good.

Tinnitis fills out the upper ranges.

blucaso, thanks for your honest reply. Unfortunately, I do pretty clearly hear the difference between a CD and an iTMS track. I have different theories about why some people don't bother tho;

equipment; if you listen to the iTMS tracks on Apples earbuds, to put it modestly, those things are like somekinda anti-equalizer. No wonder 128kbps is "enough".

environment; if you are surrounded by trains, cars, shouting people ie. living the usual bigcity life, the leftovers of the music at 128kbps will probably be enough for most people to sing along. True, 192kbps won't make a huge difference.

listening habits; many people seem to digest music as something in the background these days. Again, these "BG/Radio" listeners couldn't care less about some loss in depth, bass, treble whatever. Okay, this goes against the earbud folks...but at least it's a tendency.

However, I just happen to love the clarity of the music I listen to. No matter what style, earbuds (real ones) or speakers.

Since you asked I'll name some of the tracks as of the last 12hrs in my playlist...ripped at 192kbps, thank gawd.

Squarepusher - some tracks from Go Plastic, Jamie Lidell - Multiply Album, Elvis Costello - The Juliet Letters,Björk, Miles Davis, Prince, Esquivel, A.C. Jobim - plus lotsa other oddities. On a sidenote...this playlist makes me wonder if I'm sane. Oh well.

P.S.

In case someone has been living in a cave or equal - do check out the coolest music invention not being part (unfortunately) of the iTunes player.

pandora.com

If apple can feed a coupla million osx users with that latest 50+ mb download/update for free how come they cannot feed a coupla million people with a 5mb file that was originally 3mb with shitty compression? Im just askin. The people in Sweden have 100mbit which is amazing compared to most other countrys but isnt 2-8mbit pretty much what most people have these days anyways? who cares about an additional 10 secs dl time?

gorsh, does GWAR still exist? I'm just curious since their leadsinger once promised to sodomise M.Thatcher in public. Something im still sorta waiting for.

BITRATE BUMP:

Should Apple move up to 192 or 256? Yes and no.

Yes for the quality wanting audiofile. But most of these people still buy discs and import them in high quality compression or Apple Lossless...

And how can anyone argue with Apple's success at 128 bit and iPod sales?

From Apple's marketing perspective, when a true competitor, such as a popular Windows compatible player, or highly successful online store for Windows players hits the market, then Apple can strike with 256 quality music.

Why leave that on the table now?

Apple will more than likely play this card only when a competitor - such as URGE - hits the market. BUT, only if URGE or the like is successful. If not, why do this?

Lastly, larger files lowers the marketing ability of how many songs the iPod can hold - and while we know 90% of the people owning 60 GB iPods only have 120 songs on then, it is perception that counts.

So Apple will only move to a higher quality file compression when and if they must in order to keep or grow market share - and not until then.

As for consumers - if you want great quality sounding music, go to Costco, get your CD's and rip them in perfect transfer with Apple lossless.

gorsh:



you're so right (the Who did a similar number on me)

QUALITY BUMP:

Should Apple add more features to OSX? Yes and no.

Yes for the quality wanting ueber-operator. But most of these people still buy 3rd party add-ons, utilities, apps - or even build their in-house solutions.

And how can anyone argue with Apple's success with OSX?

From Apple's marketing perspective, when a true competitor, such as Microsoft Windows Vista hits the market, then Apple can strike with more features.

Why leave that on the table now?

Apple will more than likely play this card only when a competitor - such as VISTA - hits the market. BUT, only if VISTA or the like is successful. If not, why do this?

Lastly, more features lowers the marketing ability of how many utilities and extras the end-user really needs to learn - and while we know 90% of the people owning a Mac only use a maximum of 12 apps, it is perception that counts.

So Apple will only add more utilities, i-apps and whatnot when and if they must in order to keep or grow market share - and not until then.

As for consumers - if you want great applications or utilities missing in your current OS, go elsewhere, get your apps and use them in Apple's currently perfect OS.

funny how so called audio-pros claim they dont hear a difference. sound engineers are often known to be partially deaf - esp. after spending 20 yrs in those studios. or are you guys mixin gregorian chants?

some scary facts for you audio-pros (not that its a secret)

http://livedesignonline.com/news/show_business_audio_professionals_going/index.html

"this one goes to eleven..."

Thanks, M.Landau, for your gracious reply.

And leeloo, I didn't say I couldn't hear the difference, but I did say that the difference didn't bother me sufficiently to make the music unlistenable or unpleasant.

And my recent downloads from the iTunes Music store include the soundtrack to Grizzly Man featuring the great Richard Thompson, Bruce Cockburn's acoustic collection "Speechless", Andrew Bird's marvellous albums "The Swimming Hour" and "The Mysterious Production of Eggs", Son Volt "Okemah and the Melody of Riot", George Winston's "December", Madeleine Peyroux's incredible "Dreamland", and the Getz/Gilberto album (also featuring the above-mentioned Antonio Carlos Jobim, for synchronicity and closure of the musical loop!).

Would I like 192 or 256? Sure. Would I wait for the downloads? Sure I would. I'm just saying I can see arguments against it too. Frankly, I'm sometimes amazed at how bad the compression on DVD's looks, and I'm definitely NOT a videophile. But the color banding is so distracting on some occasions that it makes me cringe.

Also, I know that I'm paying for a convenience and that I'm not usually listening in a dedicated environment. If I'm in the car, or at the gym using crappy earbuds, I'm just taking along the music and the noise will definitely override and possible quality problems.

I do also find it ironic that the kind of comments I hear now about the poor quality if iTMS tracks mirrors the same comments I remember in 1985 (and 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989...) about how CD's didn't sound as good as vinyl. Well maybe in an ideal, perfect environment with pristine virgin vinyl being tracked by a brand new top-of-the-line needle in a scientific clean room... once. But otherwise, for reliability and repeated listening, the CD was obviously a big step forward. On the other hand, and maybe I'm just loony, there's times when I really actually enjoy old records and their crackle, warmth, distortion, the whole works. Especially old 78's, but there you go. There's no accounting for taste.

I think maybe there's a 3rd-party market for a niche "quality" download provider, the same as todays "Superbit" CD's and yesterday's vinyl "Gold remasters" were. But the fact is, it remains to be seen if people would pay a premium (and if so, how much) for that service, or if someone (including Apple) would bump up the quality for the same price.

M Landau,, give it a rest. Buy your damn CDs and shut the hell up. Are you a wine snob too?

and he dictated them to benefit Apple

And how exactly is this to benefit Apple? With higher prices, Apple would get more money from their cut. Dumbass.

Amen to that, neomonkey.

I picture Landau zipping around the house dusting things and re-straightening pictures, pausing only to scream at the neighborhood kids outside to shut up with their infernal playing.

M Landau,

I agree.
You're not an audio snob. You appreciate quality.

The people who get enraged over posts like yours have got used to listening to music in poor quality.
Paradoxically, their attitude reminds me of many PC users who defend the Microsoft world.
They know what they like and they like what they know and sometimes get aggressive (perhaps understandably) when it's suggested that what they like and know is second-rate.

As for you blucaso ... what's your profession again? I just can't believe it.

I've done the test on my iPod with good quality earphones.
Two recordings of 'Take Five' one in Apple Lossless and the other in '128' quality and the same test with a short piece of classical music.
The difference is huge.
There is nothing subtle about the difference in quality.
One is good the other is second rate.

Apart from the 'test' pieces, I've only got music in Apple Lossless on the iPod and although it means much less music and much reduced battery life (about two and a quarter hours), it's worth it.

I will not buy from iTunes Store (again) until they improve the quality.
My money goes on CD's.
A much better deal.

neomonkey,

nomen est omen.

You're beneath contempt.

Since when is wanting better quality about being a snob? I want good value for my cash. I too will wait and as many of us here in Japan do, go to Tsutaya and rent CDs.

All this talk about digital music bit rate snobbism is funny.

CD quality?

BS

Clean vinyl whips digital every day!!

I set my daughter down & played her a virgin vinyl japanese import record & she came away stunned. The ambient qualities of the music are subtle, but open up the room with real sonic waves.

Sound is analog, Digital is little sonic samples. Ambience is lost in even the best digital sampling. I read that higher sample rates will erase this difference, but so far not.

Digital music is a compromise at its best. When laser printed type came about, the old timers scoffed at the ragged dots in computer type. true, but people can accept lower rez pretty easily & the economics drives the process so that now all type is digital and we accept it.

The best digital type will not soon equal letter press in sharpness, but no one can afford to set type that's not digital. The same goes for Music.

So don't tell me about the "quality" of higher sampling rates. Its all a digital compromise driven by convenience & price.

I listen to lots of MP3s & the quality is acceptable, but if I want to hear amazing sound quality I dust off my turntable & put on an analog sound disk.

And besides, I've never had to worry that my vinyl records are listening to me , installing rootkits & contacting the mothership.