MacDailyNews - Where Mac news comes first

May 20, 08 - 08:16 am Comment from: Ampar

The service is not compatible with Safari.

"We're sorry, Napster is not currently available on Safari
Napster's Web-based music service currently works on Firefox. To download the latest Firefox release for Mac OS X, click the button below."

so-o-o ...

are they gonna call this "new" iPod format .. Mac-ster ??

May 20, 08 - 08:17 am Comment from: Connor MacBook

Alas no-one seems to be able to tell the difference between AAC and Fairplay - they think AAC = DRM. Plus the MP3 name still has mindshare.

May 20, 08 - 08:23 am Comment from: MikeK

MDN Take: "iTunes' DRM-free tracks (iTunes Plus) are not more expensive than the tracks that the other music cartels refuse to unlock..."
---------------

Actually, Amazon.com offers some of those tracks for 89 cents. So yes, in some cases, iTunes is more expensive.

MikeK,

Veiga stated that iTunes Store's iTunes Plus (DRM-free) tracks are more expensive than the other iTunes Store tracks.

That is wrong. It is simply bad reporting.

Why are you trying (and failing) to justify it with your convoluted, meaningless bullshit?

May 20, 08 - 08:36 am Comment from: MikeK

@Pete,

Ahh.. got it.. On first read, I thought he said iTunes is more expensive than amazon.com (which is correct some cases,) but now I see he was saying more expensive than other iTunes tracks which is in fact, not correct..

Convulted, meaningless bullsh**t? Wow, wake up on the wrong side of bed this morning? Chill, buddy, chill.

May 20, 08 - 08:37 am Comment from: Mr. Peabody

Wow... While I don't believe the Nap can compete in any literal sense with iTMS, I do believe that they have a chance at pulling themselves up by moving in the direction they are going. However, they need to make a 90º turn, not a 45º turn, and what's more, I think they know it but are still clinging to some stubborn notion that, once they get back on their feet they'll be able to revert back.

They're using the word iPod in their press release for effect, and technically I will be able to buy Nap tunedge on my Mac, but it's a kludge. What's working for Amazon, for instance, is the fact that they went through the trouble of making a small relatively unobtrusive piece of software that allows iTunes to interact with the Amazon online music store. Napster stubbornly refuses to even make their music store compatible with Safari, much less iTunes. In other words, they're hedging their bets, they're not fully committed to providing a full service that fully integrates and includes both iPods and Macintosh users. It won't fly - so in reality they still don't get it.

And yes, let's please move beyond MP3 - it's long past over due.

mdn: "Now, why do these outfits insist on going backwards in time to the MP3 dinosaur when they have the more efficient and equally-DRM-free AAC available at their fingertips? Why do they stick to an old, outdated, now-surpassed format?"

mdn is so blindly following apple that it is bordering idiocy sometimes. the reason for sticking to mp3 is simple: it is called brand awareness (mp3 ist the brand here). no one outside of geek-sides like this knows what drm-free or aac means. an aac-shop? what? but everyone knows what an mp3-store is. no one in their right mind would trade that advantage against a slightly more efficient codec.

May 20, 08 - 08:48 am Comment from: Jay-Z

@ Connor MacBook:

MP4 should have been the name for AAC, as this would point out the connection to MP3.

It would be great if Apple sued the labels for forcing DRM upon iTunes tracks. Currently, iTunes is the only major music retailer forced to use DRM on its tracks. The other top 5 retailers all sell DRM-free music (either as MP3 downloads or CDs).

Ampar said:
"The service is not compatible with Safari.

"We're sorry, Napster is not currently available on Safari
Napster's Web-based music service currently works on Firefox. To download the latest Firefox release for Mac OS X, click the button below."

Their idiot Webmaster decided to include something called --browser_detect.js into his HTML --
How can they ever hope to sell to the iPod crowd - if they continue to lock out certain browsers ? ..
(on purpose -no less !)

@ ralph from berlin?

Are you serious?

Tell ya what, why don't you spend .10th of a second Googling AAC.

If you'd do that, you'd not embarrass yourself so in a public forum on the internet BECAUSE;

AAC is NOT APPLE. AAC (Also know as MP4) is the replacement spec for MP3.

Then again, since EIGHTY FRIGGIN' PERCENT of the market must (by your definition) be "out of their minds", what we know?

Ralph, you're so blindly following dogma that you're hard to take seriously.

Then again, I needed a good laugh this morning!

May 20, 08 - 09:00 am Comment from: Follower

Jay-Z:

Suing three of the labels for forcing DRM would be difficult, as Apple has signed a contract with them agreeing to do exactly that. As for the other two, who AFAIK supply tracks to iTunes on a month-to-month contract basis, it would be far simpler for Apple to decline to "renew" at the end of some month. The iTunes Store's song inventory would go down, but I bet it would only be for a month or so before the labels capitulated and came back with DRM-free AAC tracks to the vendor that is selling more music for them right now than Wal-Mart.

May 20, 08 - 09:04 am Comment from: Follower

@Moo: Concerning ralph's cluelessness: I'm sure someone will pop up here soon to tell us that he's that way because of the general stupidity of Americans. Oh, wait...

May 20, 08 - 09:13 am Comment from: HMCIV

Remember those Superbowl commercials where Napster told us to do the math...

Those were great commercials (in an ironic sorta way).

May 20, 08 - 09:13 am Comment from: jjjj

There's one thing good about Napster: free streaming at http://free.napster.com

(low quality, but perfect for the office)

so... selling the mp3s you used to give away for free?

*sigh

May 20, 08 - 09:23 am Comment from: January 24, 1984

Dirt-Nap-Ster.

Shawn must be sad.

May 20, 08 - 09:23 am Comment from: Jay-Z

@ Follower:

You could be right. It's a fine line Apple has to walk. In the end I guess it really doesn't matter – either it will be easy to buy or people will just download it for free. The labels aren't going to learn that any time soon – they're too busy trying to protect something they can't protect.

May 20, 08 - 09:40 am Comment from: Spark

@ moo
I think ralph from berlin understands what AAC is. He is stating that outside of a relative few, no one else in the general marketplace knows what it is. Everyone has come to know what MP3s are; that term has become synonymous with digital recordings. Record companies are simply taking advantage of this awareness.

Of course this highlights the bigger problem within the recording industry. These days they do what is expedient to make a buck. In the past the recording industry would embracing new technologies that could improve the quality and packaging of the recordings sold. It was left up to customer to update their hardware to take advantage of the better recordings; and most ultimately did so if the technology's advantages warranted it. In other words, the recording industry typically took the lead in embracing the technologies that could best reproduce and deliver the music.

Now we have the iPod: hardware that accommodates a better recording technology, while the recording industry drags its feet in delivering the superior product. Just more evidence at how corrupted the record companies have become. There is NO reason that record companies can not offer BOTH AAC and MP3 versions of songs. Jeez, they used to simultaneously produce vinyl LP, 45RPM vinyl, 4-track, 8-track and cassette. Those are separate physical manufacturing techniques and production lines. So there is no excuse for not making DRM-free AAC versions at the same time they are making DRM-free MP3. Apple is not the only digital music player that can play back AAC. Recording companies ought to be taking the lead in delivering recordings using the best technology, not holding it back for Marketing reasons or as some bargaining chip to leverage against Apple.

Yep, those subscription services really paid off!

"The service, which soft-launched in the US in November, is likely to roll out in the UK in March. It's one of the first services enabled by Microsoft's Janus technology, which for the first time allows music files bought via subscription services to be transferred from a PC to a portable device."
Feb, 2005

MicroSoft's, Napster's, Real's, Walmart's, etc. ineptitude in the whole iTunes, iPod business is just simply astonishing.

May 20, 08 - 09:45 am Comment from: ericdano

So all the hype about subscription music is now dead?

BEER... GOOD!

NAPSTER... BAAAAD!!

Audiogalaxy was awesome, though...

Apple should allow Amazon and Napster to put their stores in iTunes, along with the iTunes store and charge them a fee per track that's sold. That would be a good way for Apple to capitalize on the drm-free tracks.

May 20, 08 - 10:24 am Comment from: Predrag

A comment regarding the debate between Moo and Ralph (from Berlin);

It is obvious that everyone, including my aunt, has heard of an MP3, and noone, not even my aunt, has a clue what AAC is. The argument about brand awareness holds water there. However, this never stopped Apple from acquiring No. 1 spot in music sales (digital or physical) in the US. While we're talking brands, let's look at brands here: there's that MP3 as a brand; then there's Napster, which still may have some name recognition from the 'swashbucklink' years; and then there's... Apple... and iPod. Apparently, Napster thought that neither Napster (the brand) nor iPod (the brand) were enough to generate publicity and awareness for their new effort, so they decided (strategically) to go with MP3, in order to avoid having to explain to the owners of those cheapo $20 Chinese-made MP3 players that they can't play Napster AAC songs on them. In addition to Apple, I only know of Sony as another maker of digital players that supports AAC (Walkman and walkman phone lines). While these two cover vast territory, Napster wanted to avoid having only their market space as competition.

Apple will continue to take 6 out of every 7 dollars spent on downloads. Napster is now joining Amazon (and perhaps Zune Marketplace) in the fight for that seventh dollar. They needed to be compatible with as many devices as possible. MP3 is the lowest (literally, buy quality) common denominator.

As much as AAC is tecnhologically superior to MP3, it is obvious that for music audiences, MP3 is good enough. We have obviously done the same thing here as we did when moving from Vinyl LP to compact audio cassette - taking a quality hit in exchange for superior convenience.

Perhaps one day, chip makers will build AAC into those MP3 decoders, and they'll be cheap enough to build into all these cheapo MP3s that come with pens, USB flash drives, key chains and such. I'm sure Napster and other will be willing to reconsider then.

wow, now i know how it feels to be a blogger at zdnet ...

anyway: apple chose aac mainly because they were forced by the music labels to add drm to the mucis-files to be allowed to sell them via iTunes. to my knowledge that wasn't possible with mp3 by that time but it was possible with aac. of course apple wasn't sad to go with the superior format.

and i think apple is just fine with their choice. i think they will also stick to aac after the music-labels allowed them to go all drm-free (which hopefully happens sooner than later). and itunes customers couldn't care less in which format their music comes.

but for itunes competitors to drop the advantage of mp3-awareness would be like considering business suicide. they have to use the marketing power of that name.

and because all digital music stores tend to offer higher bitrates (even more so in the future i guess) the difference between 320 mp3 lame vbr and 320 aac tends to become irrelevant with 500 GB standard HD nowadays.

Napster originally was created by music thieves for other music thieves. Appropriately, the company was punished in the market place, but not enough for my tastes. The tarnished name is synonymous with copyright infringement and it should have been retired long ago. I will never purchase music from the company, just on principle.

and sorry, my comment regarding mdn was a little bit harsh, i guess.

People think AAC stands for "Apple something something". They don't want AAC because they think it's proprietary and won't play on any other devices. Without an awareness raising campaign it'll take a looong time, maybe never, to get people to be happy with AAC. Besides, the unwashed masses think MP3's sound just fine, thank you very much.

HP was smart enough to see that the iPod had everyone beat and supported it. Just what IF Napster had done the same thing?...I think they would have been a viable alternative and competitor and actually have a piece of the pie.
Playsforsure(which no longer exists) and pride got in the way. The best solution won...support it.

May 20, 08 - 11:12 am Comment from: MikeK

AAC = Over 4 BILLION songs sold.

MP3 = Anyone got a figure?

Whatever the MP3 sales figure is, it most certainly pales in comparison to the amount of AAC songs sold.

May 20, 08 - 11:49 am Comment from: Mr. Peabody

@MikeK,

But whatever the number for MP3, I bet it trounces AAC for number of stolen songs.

May 20, 08 - 11:52 am Comment from: Ampar

"We’ve had DRM in Windows for years.
The most common format of music on an iPod is 'stolen'."

- Steve Ballmer

May 20, 08 - 11:55 am Comment from: MikeK

@Mr. Peabody,

True, but were not talking about people who steal music, we are talking about people who purchase legitimately. MP3 has become a generic term like "xerox" or "kleenex," but I just don't believe the notion that no one knows what AAC is.. Especially since there have been over 4 billion sales of AAC files..

@MikeK

True but a large amount of people don't know their ass from a hole in the ground, or MP3 from AAC. They just worry about getting their music not the format it's in, which is a shame. I have my entire library in AAC and couldn't be happier. But for those ignorant masses, it (unfortunately) doesn't matter.

May 20, 08 - 07:15 pm Comment from: UltraVisitor

I like to refer to them as MP4s. It has the name recognition of MP3, but still gets across that it's a notch better quality.

May 21, 08 - 05:21 am Comment from: bobchr

I believe MP4 or AAC was adopted by Apple in the early 2000's possibly even before that. I remember issues of IEEE magazine carrying stories about it in the 1999-2000 time frame. It was primarily adopted as part of the superior format MPEG 4 for Quicktime in order to grow that brand s a superior alternative to the WMA format. Audio and video were the keys to an open source superior format for Apple to grow the Quicktime brand and gain rapid adoption in the professional media and broadcast industry. Apple started laying this ground work about the time the first Imacs' came out and SJ was the big mover and shaker in Pixar. Hence the reason Apple adopted these standards. Way before Itunes way before Apple TV. Mpeg 4 was adopted by the motion picture entertainment group around 2001 as their new standard and is open source not Apple proprietary as some would have you believe. Because of that wide held belief when the gentleman from Germany that developed the codec for MP3's came a knocking for royalties he did not get the biggest fish (Apple ) because they were not selling MP3's.

May 21, 08 - 05:26 am Comment from: bobchr

The only thing proprietary in the Itune format of the MP4 is the Fairplay DRM which was the record companies imposed anti-piracy condition forced on Apple as a condition of them handing over their libraries.

May 21, 08 - 05:34 am Comment from: bobchr

I think Apple has chosen not to aggressively educate people about the distinction because Ipods play either format as well as WMA files and a few others. Also Apples market position is not that tenuous that it needs to aggressively educate the public on the subtle differences of the various formats Ipod sales are still growing YOY. Don't spend money on the issue till you have to.