| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
They won't be making much off it.I have to agree with you that the Mac only
thing is very stupid considering that Mac has only a tiny percentage of the computer market.It dosen't matter anyway ,within one week of it comming out some hackers figured out how to share the files.Its a no win situation on piracy.As soon as they come up with something to protect it hackers from around the world figure our how to hack it. Joe wrote in message om... I can understand that this I-tunes thing is really a way to make I-Mac's more popopular - otherwise there is no reason why they needed users to install mac-only software to browse the selections and make purchases. But what a bone-head thing to do. If you're going to offer music like that (and presumably make money - even at a buck a track) then why limit your market size? That issue aside, when you buy a track, do you get a music file that is device and platform independent, and hence transportable? Or does it require a proprietary player (I-mac only perhaps?)? Is the file water-marked - allowing the powers that be to identify who bought it (and hence allow for tracking of copies) ? On a related topic- Is there any outfit that will sell, on-line, single tracks in a transportable, non-proprietary format, player and platform independant? Better yet - are such offerings available in CD-sampled .WAV files (instead of .mp3) ??? Editorial: I would pay up to $3 per track for a .WAV quality track that is not water-marked and is fully transportable. The music industry has been shooting itself in the foot for years for not making it's own products available to consumers in a format like this. What's the difference if I: A) buy a $15 or $20 CD and use Exact Audio Copy to extract the tracks I like and store them on my home audio server for playback through a SPDIF port to my receiver OR B) buy a .WAV file on-line for $3 and then move the file to my home audio server? The difference is that if I can't purchase .WAV files on-line then I'm not bloody hell going to spend $20 on a CD just to get the one track I like. |
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
"Joe" wrote in message
I can understand that this I-tunes thing is really a way to make I-Mac's more popopular - otherwise there is no reason why they needed users to install mac-only software to browse the selections and make purchases. But what a bone-head thing to do. If you're going to offer music like that (and presumably make money - even at a buck a track) then why limit your market size? I read (I think in Recording) that they have "plans" to release it on Windows. No telling when, though. And I agree, a dollar per song is way too expensive, especially for a compressed file. But I still wouldn't pay any more for a non-compressed one. I think the good thing about being able to download songs for free is that you can download songs that you never would have bought in the store, even for a dollar. If I had to pay one dollar for "Sunglasses at Night" by Corey Hart then I never would have downloaded it. Ten cents may be a different story, though. |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
it is coming out for pc, we were told that signing up as artists with it
"Thomas Bishop" wrote in message ... "Joe" wrote in message I can understand that this I-tunes thing is really a way to make I-Mac's more popopular - otherwise there is no reason why they needed users to install mac-only software to browse the selections and make purchases. But what a bone-head thing to do. If you're going to offer music like that (and presumably make money - even at a buck a track) then why limit your market size? I read (I think in Recording) that they have "plans" to release it on Windows. No telling when, though. And I agree, a dollar per song is way too expensive, especially for a compressed file. But I still wouldn't pay any more for a non-compressed one. I think the good thing about being able to download songs for free is that you can download songs that you never would have bought in the store, even for a dollar. If I had to pay one dollar for "Sunglasses at Night" by Corey Hart then I never would have downloaded it. Ten cents may be a different story, though. |
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
In article , Joe
wrote: I can understand that this I-tunes thing is really a way to make I-Mac's more popopular - otherwise there is no reason why they needed users to install mac-only software to browse the selections and make purchases. But what a bone-head thing to do. If you're going to offer music like that (and presumably make money - even at a buck a track) then why limit your market size? You are missing a not-so-subtle point: iTunes is a powerful, multifaceted application that was designed to do a lot of things *very* well (and let me emphasize the point very well): take care of the cataloging and playing of music, burn and rip audio CD's, power the iPod, and run a revolutionary online Music store. Thatsa one spicy meatball! The technology doing all this is way more complex than one might think by just looking at the software. That the Music store runs on the same software is an user interface master stroke. Click a button in iTunes and there you are inside the store. As you probably know, Apple says that iTunes for Windows will appear later this year. I am curious to see if they can make it work as well for Windows, because just the way it works with the iPod is sooo good, powerful yet damn simple to use that it makes most of the other everyday software I use seem clunky in comparison. Can Apple pull it off? We'll see. Software and operating systems are still way too geeky. This very powerful app ain't. A couple other bits of info, you have to have a US address credit card to buy on this Music store or you will be rejected, as per the licensing with the labels. Apple wants to start one of these online music stores in and for Europe, and even Apple is having a hard time getting licensing to do it. Juggling everything necessary to pull this off is not the simple thing some may think it looks like. David Correia Celebration Sound Warren, Rhode Island www.CelebrationSound.com |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
david wrote:
You are missing a not-so-subtle point: iTunes is a powerful, multifaceted application that was designed to do a lot of things *very* well (and let me emphasize the point very well): take care of the cataloging and playing of music, burn and rip audio CD's, power the iPod, and run a revolutionary online Music store. Thatsa one spicy meatball! I bought for my wife an iMac about a year and a half ago. She likes iTunes a lot. One thing, however, has us stumped. Is it possible with iTunes to "rip" multiple tracks from a CD as a single file? Seems every time she's ever tried it, all the tracks come out as separate files - which isn't really what she wants to do. Myke -- -================================- Windows...It's rebootylicious!!! -================================- |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
(Joe) wrote in message . com...
I can understand that this I-tunes thing is really a way to make I-Mac's more popopular - otherwise there is no reason why they needed users to install mac-only software to browse the selections and make purchases. But what a bone-head thing to do. If you're going to offer music like that (and presumably make money - even at a buck a track) then why limit your market size? Because: - It's a safe(r) way for the labels to test the waters on a limited market. - It's a safe(r) way for Apple to make sure all their **** works before plunging into the every-friggin-peecee-acts-different market. That issue aside, when you buy a track, do you get a music file that is device and platform independent, and hence transportable? Or does it require a proprietary player (I-mac only perhaps?)? Is the file water-marked - allowing the powers that be to identify who bought it (and hence allow for tracking of copies) ? First, you keep writing "I-mac" when you mean to write "Mac" -- Apple makes an iMac, but iTunes Music Store runs on their other machines too. They don't do watermarking, as far as I know. I have some production experience with this; the computing requirements would be astronomical if they tried to custom-watermark every file. Instead of asking the other stuff here, why don't you go to the source? http://www.apple.com/music/ On a related topic- Is there any outfit that will sell, on-line, single tracks in a transportable, non-proprietary format, player and platform independant? Better yet - are such offerings available in CD-sampled .WAV files (instead of .mp3) ??? I see a Google search in your future... Editorial: I would pay up to $3 per track for a .WAV quality track that is not water-marked and is fully transportable. The music industry has been shooting itself in the foot for years for not making it's own products available to consumers in a format like this. Agreed, they are being pigheaded in a lot of ways. One thing the media fails to report is that even if the labels were all for selling downloadable music, they don't have the publishing rights to do so for many artists' recordings -- you won't find any Beatles or Garth Brooks on iTunes Music Store for that reason. The labels would probably love to get even more income off those properties, but they can't until either Michael Jackson and/or Garth say so. Same goes for later Stones albums (IIRC), Bob Seeger, G'n'R, etc. It will probably take an act of Congress (i.e. compulsory licensing) to make downloadable music work like a real record store. The way the RIAA and the labels are acting (suing their customers, releasing non Red Book compliant "copy protected" discs, etc.) it's likely that their ****ed off customers will badger Congress into doing something foolish instead of just letting the market adapt. -DrBoom |
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
In article , "Troy"
wrote: They won't be making much off it.I have to agree with you that the Mac only thing is very stupid considering that Mac has only a tiny percentage of the computer market.It dosen't matter anyway ,within one week of it comming out some hackers figured out how to share the files.Its a no win situation on piracy.As soon as they come up with something to protect it hackers from around the world figure our how to hack it. Joe wrote in message om... I can understand that this I-tunes thing is really a way to make I-Mac's more popopular - otherwise there is no reason why they needed users to install mac-only software to browse the selections and make purchases. But what a bone-head thing to do. If you're going to offer music like that (and presumably make money - even at a buck a track) then why limit your market size? Boy, Do you guys so NOT *get* iTunes. What Jobs did was realize that there was a better way to get music into peoples computers, and bet that people would be more inclined to do it LEGALLY, if there was a simple and affordable way that didn't make them feel like thieves. He had the will AND the clout to bring the biggest music owners to the table to try out that new way. They did. He did. And surprise, surprise, he's got customers out the ying yang. (they're probably nearing 10Millions songs sold by now.) You can try to wrap it up in a "plot to sell Macs" or whatever, but open your eyes and look around at what's happening. It was a Mac ONLY program because that's what the guy who thought it up sells. They say that the iTunes library will open to PC users near the end of the year. Oh, and just for the record, when you download an iTunes cut, the license covers your personal use (with some reasonably generous limitations) on your computers, laptops, and iPods. Again, it's oriented toward how people really want to use the music, rather than looked at EXCLUSIVELY as "how can I limit my customers use options so that they'll need to spend MORE money But what you REALLY don't get is this. It's not just iTunes. It's iPods, it's a desktop phone/number address book that updates your cel phone speed dial automatically, it's iSync, it's folding stuff like Soundtrack and LiveType and video compression stuff into Final Cut Pro. As a company Apple keeps innovating and as they do it, they keep an eye on what their customers are likely to want in terms of services and convenience. No, they don't do everything right. And YES, they often charge a premium over their competition in a lot of ways. But people who don't mind paying it are happy to buy the convenience. Myself included. iTunes was just another example of them looking at how to make their computers work more seamlessly with the lifestyles of their users. Sure iTunes was hacked. But they've STILL generated 10 Million Dollars in sales. I think I recall reading that they divy it up 1/3 to the artists, 1/3 to the record companies, and keep 1/3. I don't know what their overhead is, but I know I'd sure like to be making 3 Million 3 every couple of months with virtually NO packaging and/or distribution costs other than keeping the servers up. Imagine, inventing new and interesting products that your customers actually want - and making a boatload of money doing it. What a business concept. I know it's too bad for the PC crowd that one of the PC companies didn't come up with the concept and execution first - but then this kind of stuff is generally NOT the kind of thing that comes as an offshoot of "how can we make it CHEAPER" thinking. Which is pretty much what the PC camps keep clamoring for and what Jobs & company keep trying to resist. Just some "think different" reasoning. Take care. -- Bill Davis NewVideo -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
In article ,
I bought for my wife an iMac about a year and a half ago. She likes iTunes a lot. One thing, however, has us stumped. Is it possible with iTunes to "rip" multiple tracks from a CD as a single file? Seems every time she's ever tried it, all the tracks come out as separate files - which isn't really what she wants to do. You can do that by selecting "Join CD Tracks" in the Advanced Menu. Peter |
|
#11
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
In article , Bill
Davis wrote: I think I recall reading that they divy it up 1/3 to the artists, 1/3 to the record companies, and keep 1/3. Apple only deals just with the labels and leaves the labels to handle paying the artists. I don't know what their overhead is, but I know I'd sure like to be making 3 Million 3 every couple of months with virtually NO packaging and/or distribution costs other than keeping the servers up. Compared to a money machine like msft, a million a month isn't even cigarette money. And you know it's costing Apple waaay more than a million a month to do that store. I'm sure Apple is getting is more sales of iPods and Macs as a result. As well as the tantalizing possibility of opening it up to US Windows users and running with this football as far as they can. David Correia Celebration Sound Warren, Rhode Island www.CelebrationSound.com |
|
#12
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
As for "what exactly I'm buying"...
To my chagrin I've spent almost $100 in the last couple of weeks on iTunes. It seems every time I turn around I think of some obscure song that I'd love to have, but would never buy the entire CD just to get. CT |
|
#13
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
From: Charles Thomas
To my chagrin I've spent almost $100 in the last couple of weeks on iTunes. It seems every time I turn around I think of some obscure song that I'd love to have, but would never buy the entire CD just to get. Spent $100, "saved" ???$. Sounds like part of the plan. --Tom Paterson |
|
#14
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
|
|
#15
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Joe wrote:
So? What does music have to do with computers? That's the point. Please explain why I-tunes was specifically designed to require the user to run Mac-specific software to browse, download, and maybe even play I-tunes music. What difference does it make if i-tunes was designed just to make money for Apple or if it was designed mac-only for strictly technical and/or security reasons? LOL. Yea, that's the ticket. Instead of letting anyone with a computer, a browser, and a credit-card buy industry-standard MP3's that they can play on virtually any device, I'll spend some $$$ to have my programmers code up some mac-specific software that my (MAC-only) customers will need to download for them to buy what I'm offering. Yea, that's real smart. It does seem samrt - it's working, too. I don't have a Mac and I don't know why it's not Wintel-friendly now, but the word is that a Wintel version is coming. I'm guessing that content owners felt that the iTunes model offered a certain sense of security, or they liked the terms of the contract. Mac owners tell me they never worry about viruses. Maybe the Mac OS made I-tunes easier to implement in a safe, secure fashion. Microsoft has its Media 9 and other DRM products in the pipe. Did you expect Apple to code everyting to work with Microsoft? But the bottom line is *it's working!* Kind of hard to argue with success - unless you just like to argue. Artie Let me guess. You haven't spent much time in business school, right? It's obvious you haven't. |
|
#16
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
|
|
#17
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
|
|
#18
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Who said anything about charging $3 a song?,or $15 a CD?
If the record companies want to be greedy then it won't work.Also you are not getting artwork so the price should be cheap.If you want artwork,go buy the actual CD. As for resale value.....I don't sell my CDs and even if you do you only get $2 or $3 bucks for something you paid $15 or $20 bucks for.That dosen't sound like "resale value" to me.I would rather set my beer on it before I gave it away for those prices. My partner owns a used CD store and beleive me ,used CDs can be bought cheap. To much CRAP being being released with one or two good songs,to much filler thats the problem. initialsBB wrote in message ... "Troy" wrote in message news: I don't see any end to this.The one thing I would do as a record companay is get CD Kiosks set up in all record stores and alow people to choose what they want on there own custom CD (WAV FORMAT NOT MP3) and charge them a per song rate. They already had these machines. I remember seeing them at places like the Warehouse back in the late 80s/ early 90s. I have to say the same thing to this as I would say to the person who claims he would buy a single song for $3: yeah right! About the customizable cds, would you pay $15 for a mish-mash of songs with no cover art and no resale value rather than simply paying $15 for an album and selling it later if you don't like it? And about the $3 .wav files: don't you people buy used CDS? You're going to pay $3 for one song when you can buy the whole album for $9.95? And sell it back for $4 if it's really that bad. And to Joe who claims he likes music like jazz and blues: what are you doing downloading single tracks if you say you don't like top 40 music? Don't you care about the way albums were originally released? How about hearing a complete live set? What about artwork, liner notes? |
|
#19
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Joe wrote: *I can understand that this I-tunes thing is really a way to make I-Mac's more popopular - otherwise there is no reason why they needed users to install mac-only software to browse the selections and make purchases. But what a bone-head thing to do. If you're going to offer music like that (and presumably make money - even at a buck a track) then why limit your market size? That issue aside, when you buy a track, do you get a music file that is device and platform independent, and hence transportable? Or does it require a proprietary player (I-mac only perhaps?)? Is the file water-marked - allowing the powers that be to identify who bought it (and hence allow for tracking of copies) ? On a related topic- Is there any outfit that will sell, on-line, single tracks in a transportable, non-proprietary format, player and platform independant? Better yet - are such offerings available in CD-sampled ..WAV files (instead of .mp3) ??? Editorial: I would pay up to $3 per track for a .WAV quality track that is not water-marked and is fully transportable. The music industry has been shooting itself in the foot for years for not making it's own products available to consumers in a format like this. What's the difference if I: A) buy a $15 or $20 CD and use Exact Audio Copy to extract the tracks I like and store them on my home audio server for playback through a SPDIF port to my receiver OR B) buy a .WAV file on-line for $3 and then move the file to my home audio server? The difference is that if I can't purchase .WAV files on-line then I'm not bloody hell going to spend $20 on a CD just to get the one track I like. * the PC software for I-tunes is due out at the end of this year according to Apple. -- KingXII - Administrator ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Posted via MIDIBuddy - Professional MIDI Files and Music Community http://midibuddy.net View this thread: http://board.midibuddy.net/t59671.html |
|
#20
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
If they were to release it for Mac only then that would be very stupid as
Mac has such a small percentage of the computer market.That dosen't make very good business sense. Bill Davis wrote in message ... What Jobs did was realize that there was a better way to get music into peoples computers, and bet that people would be more inclined to do it LEGALLY, if there was a simple and affordable way that didn't make them feel like thieves. Bull ****. You do not need a specific computer platform or specific software to browse items and make purchases from E-Bay, or Amazon, or pretty much any on-line retailer. Music is just another commodity - like books. If Steve Jobs wants to sell music, track by track, then fine. The music companies should have been doing that for at least the past 5 years. Yeah, well, then clearly their people are either more distracted, less wise, or simply stupider than Mr. Jobs. Because he's the only one so far who's looked at the horizon and figured there was a another way to proceed. But don't tell me it was both smart AND necessary to make browsing the selections and making actual purchases to be Mac-dependent. And it's NOT a great idea if I need to have specific devices to listen to the music (like the pod-thing). Quite simply, this is NOT about the music. It's about Mac. Well DUH... Of COURSE it's about the Mac. For heaven's sake the guy who put the iTunes system together is the HEAD of the company that makes Macs. What POSSIBLE reason could he have for saying, "Hey, I think I'll develop a new product. Even tho I'm surrounded by Mac engineers. Even tho I have access (no wait, OWNERSHIP) of everything from the OS to the source code for the ROM, I think I'll develop it as a PC product! Yeah, THAT's the ticket! I'll devote TWICE the development time to the product and Zillions of hours more hours of time getting this stuff to work on a hundred MP3 player variants and with who knows how many system configurations on desktop boxes - rather than just doing the first implementation on the stuff I already know and control. Let me guess. You haven't spent much time in business school, right? No sin there. But man, if you wait for the world to work the way YOU think it should, you'll be waiting a LONG time. iTunes is what it is. It works the way it works. It'll eventually be available for PC users because that's what the OWNER of the program decided. Welcome to reality. -- Bill Davis NewVideo -----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =----- http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! -----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =----- |
|
#21
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
"initialsBB" wrote About the customizable cds, would you pay $15 for a mish-mash of songs with no cover art and no resale value rather than simply paying $15 for an album and selling it later if you don't like it? I find that an odd comment. I have never, ever, ever bought a CD and thought, "Oh well, I can probably re-sell it later and get some of my money back." Just like guitar strings, VHS movies from Wal-Mart or the "Ocen Blue Mist" air freshener. Some things I buy with the attitude "Well, if I don't like it, I won't buy it agian". Not a criticism or anything, just a different mindset I guess. To answer your question, yes, I'd quite often like to pick the 10 songs on the CD. And then again, sometimes I like to roll the dice and hear the not-so-popular cuts. I don't think it has to be an either-or proposition. - Tommy |
|
#22
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: . . . the word is that a Wintel version is coming. I'm guessing that content owners felt that the iTunes model offered a certain sense of security, or they liked the terms of the contract. So how's the business model for this going to work? Who's going to make the money? With iTunes, Apple could make money by selling more iPods (and probalby a few more desktop comptuers too) BECAUSE of the convenience of iTunes. But nobody is going to make any more money selling Windoze computers because they can play music. I've read that Jobs offers all content owners the same deal - take it or leave it. That tells me the content owners who sign up with iTunes are satisfied with the money. In other words, the content owners are settling for whatever percentage they're getting of the 99 cents per tune. So, AFAIK, the Wintel model is essentially the same as the Mac with different DRM and security to accomodate the Windows crowd. If anyone is successful at this, it will be someone who has figured out how to make enough money with music licensing to be worth while. AFAIK, there was no gunplay involved in getting the labels to sign with iTunes. I've been asking this same rhetorical question since the Napster debate/****-storm here on RAP: how is a tune worth? How is much is an MP3 worth? Looks like somebody finally picked a number that a few people can agree on. And Microsoft is trying to roll out Media 9 with even more bells and whistles than iTunes. Eventually everyone will figure out that pop music is a commodity just like cheeseburgers and we'll move on. The compulsory licensing thing is another matter altogether. It will be interesting to see how that evolves. Artie And either that will be one of the existing music licensing organizations or someone who can convince them to give up a significant cut of their present income on the premise that they'll help open up the market further. -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) |
|
#23
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: Yeah, well, then clearly their people are either more distracted, less wise, or simply stupider than Mr. Jobs. Because he's the only one so far who's looked at the horizon and figured there was a another way to proceed. You just don't get it. He DIDN'T develop a new product. He's making an existing commodity (music) available through an alternate retail channel. AND instead of taking advantage of existing capabilities and software, he chose to make it real complicated and expensive by creating platform-specific software that the user is required to use in order to browse, purchase, and download the commodity. Which, coincidentally, Mr. Jobs just happens to sell. Pretty smart. He gets the music owners to give him bait to attract customers to what he really wants to sell. You think he's getting rich selling tunes? Nope, he's getting rich selling more iPods than he would otherwise because people can easily load them up with tunes. -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) But King Gillette gave the razors away and made money on the blades... -- Les Cargill |
|
#24
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Les Cargill wrote:
Artie Turner wrote: There's no way it can work. iTunes is an (apparently) proprietary distribution channel. If the contract specifies they cannot use other electronic distro channels, it'd be Bad. If it doesn't, Apple will be drowing in "me too" clones as soon as the dust settles. I guess I don't understand what you're saying: it's working now. There will always be "me too" commerce. Pop music is all about "me too." And Microsoft is trying to roll out Media 9 with even more bells and whistles than iTunes. Eventually everyone will figure out that pop music is a commodity just like cheeseburgers and we'll move on. There ya go. I'll be derned if I'll spend $.99 for bit reduced music, though. Maybe you won't, but a few million other people already have. The compulsory licensing thing is another matter altogether. It will be interesting to see how that evolves. It's going to put lots of lawyers' kids through Harvard. I agree with you on that! AT Artie And either that will be one of the existing music licensing organizations or someone who can convince them to give up a significant cut of their present income on the premise that they'll help open up the market further. -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) -- Les Cargill |
|
#25
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Mike Rivers wrote:
I haven't dealt with used CD stores other than to look around for some things that I didn't find. Can you really sell old CDs for $4? I should cash in some of my junk. You don't get $4 for anything, but some titles will bring that. A -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) |
|
#26
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
|
|
#27
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
|
|
#28
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Mike Rivers wrote:
In article writes: So, AFAIK, the Wintel model is essentially the same as the Mac with different DRM and security to accomodate the Windows crowd. It could well be as far as the music side, but where will the incentive be for those who administer the file transfers and "stock the shelves"? They don't sell any iPods to people who need them in order to use the service. That's what's missing on the Windows side. You don't have to have an iPod to use Itunes - it's an added benefit. You can still get MP3s from iTunes and use them on generic MP3 players, too. The incentive for Windoze is the same incentive for any form of commerce - a few pennies of profit on every download. AFAIK, there was no gunplay involved in getting the labels to sign with iTunes. I've been asking this same rhetorical question since the Napster debate/****-storm here on RAP: how is a tune worth? How is much is an MP3 worth? Looks like somebody finally picked a number that a few people can agree on. I'd be curious to know if it's enough so that they can give the artist and writer a share, or if it's just business for the record label. The thing that we've been harping about here is that the ARTISTS (other than those few that are getting filthy rich) aren't getting paid enough for what they're doing. Begs my question - How much is enough? How much is an MP3 worth? Why do artists let labels represent them if they aren't getting paid enough? The deal with iTunes was between the labels and Apple. The labels served as the artists' representatives. I'm guessing that the requisite lawyers blessed the deal and everyone is getting their contractual due, regardless of how small it might be. Eventually everyone will figure out that pop music is a commodity just like cheeseburgers and we'll move on. If that happens, then all the really good songwriters will be serving cheeseburgers and not writing songs, or at least not writing songs and putting them in YOUR hands. Why do you assume that? Burger King makes the burgers, Vivendi makes the pop songs. Which is worth more, a burger or a Britney Spears MP3? Only the market can really make that determination. If the only motive for a good song is the profit margin, then I think you need to re-evaluate your definition of a *good* song. Artie -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) |
|
#29
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Artie Turner wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: Artie Turner wrote: There's no way it can work. iTunes is an (apparently) proprietary distribution channel. If the contract specifies they cannot use other electronic distro channels, it'd be Bad. If it doesn't, Apple will be drowing in "me too" clones as soon as the dust settles. I guess I don't understand what you're saying: it's working now. There will always be "me too" commerce. Pop music is all about "me too." I am saying that other companies will develop and distribute iTunes clones, and that it'll drown when the supply way exceeds demand. The only thing interesting about iTunes is "will it work". Once that's answered, the barrier to entry vanishes. And Microsoft is trying to roll out Media 9 with even more bells and whistles than iTunes. Eventually everyone will figure out that pop music is a commodity just like cheeseburgers and we'll move on. There ya go. I'll be derned if I'll spend $.99 for bit reduced music, though. Maybe you won't, but a few million other people already have. Five billion flies can't be wrong. The compulsory licensing thing is another matter altogether. It will be interesting to see how that evolves. It's going to put lots of lawyers' kids through Harvard. I agree with you on that! AT Artie And either that will be one of the existing music licensing organizations or someone who can convince them to give up a significant cut of their present income on the premise that they'll help open up the market further. -- I'm really Mike Rivers - ) -- Les Cargill -- Les Cargill |
|
#30
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
(Joe) wrote in message . com...
I can understand that this I-tunes thing is really a way to make I-Mac's more popopular - otherwise there is no reason why they needed users to install mac-only software to browse the selections and make purchases. But what a bone-head thing to do. If you're going to offer music like that (and presumably make money - even at a buck a track) then why limit your market size? That issue aside, when you buy a track, do you get a music file that is device and platform independent, and hence transportable? Or does it require a proprietary player (I-mac only perhaps?)? Is the file water-marked - allowing the powers that be to identify who bought it (and hence allow for tracking of copies) ? On a related topic- Is there any outfit that will sell, on-line, single tracks in a transportable, non-proprietary format, player and platform independant? Better yet - are such offerings available in CD-sampled .WAV files (instead of .mp3) ??? Editorial: I would pay up to $3 per track for a .WAV quality track that is not water-marked and is fully transportable. The music industry has been shooting itself in the foot for years for not making it's own products available to consumers in a format like this. What's the difference if I: A) buy a $15 or $20 CD and use Exact Audio Copy to extract the tracks I like and store them on my home audio server for playback through a SPDIF port to my receiver OR B) buy a .WAV file on-line for $3 and then move the file to my home audio server? The difference is that if I can't purchase .WAV files on-line then I'm not bloody hell going to spend $20 on a CD just to get the one track I like. PC version has been in the works from day one. Mike http://www.mmeproductions.com |
|
#31
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Artie Turner wrote:
Les Cargill wrote: The only thing interesting about iTunes is "will it work". Once that's answered, the barrier to entry vanishes. You mean, "will it continue to work?" If there were hundreds of itunes clones, you're right, supply would outstrip demand. It hasn't happened yet. Who knows? There ya go. I'll be derned if I'll spend $.99 for bit reduced music, though. Maybe you won't, but a few million other people already have. Five billion flies can't be wrong. Sneer if you like, I'lll sneer at the really lousy quality of MP3 all I want to. Of course, the techo CDs my daughter listens too don't lose a helluva lot in the conversion, as you point out. most pop recordings work just fine as MP3s, and the kids that listen to them don't care anyway. I've been saying this for some time now - pop music has become a cheap commodity. I don't celebrate that idea, I just acknowledge it. I guess what bugs me about it is the utterly transparent cynicism of it all. That and the continuation of "it's a Komputer, so it's like rilly Hi Tek and all so it's *kewl*. Cheap commodity music still puts food on the table for some folks here, and that's a good thing. Well, certainly, certainly. Heck, all treasured classics were once commodity material. I contend that serious musicians and good songwriters will ply their trades regardless of the compensation. Yup. Absolutely, and I'd also say that niches for folks like that seem to be enhanced these days. I was watching the "Roots Music" thing on PBS, and apparently Jim Suhler played some slide for background music. And if iTunes can survive, it's not that hard to imagine good music at CD-or-better quality audio for sale using the same distribution medium. My fear is that the cheaper medium almost always wins. Artie -- Les Cargill |
|
#32
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Les Cargill wrote:
most pop recordings work just fine as MP3s, and the kids that listen to them don't care anyway. I've been saying this for some time now - pop music has become a cheap commodity. I don't celebrate that idea, I just acknowledge it. I guess what bugs me about it is the utterly transparent cynicism of it all. That and the continuation of "it's a Komputer, so it's like rilly Hi Tek and all so it's *kewl*. So who do you blame for this cynicism - the shallow, trend-following consumer, or the artist who produces the shallow, vulgar, over processed crap? It takes two to tango, you know? Cheap commodity music still puts food on the table for some folks here, and that's a good thing. Well, certainly, certainly. Heck, all treasured classics were once commodity material. I don't know about that - when I bought my copy of Sgt Pepper, the price seemed a lot dearer. I contend that serious musicians and good songwriters will ply their trades regardless of the compensation. Yup. Absolutely, and I'd also say that niches for folks like that seem to be enhanced these days. I was watching the "Roots Music" thing on PBS, and apparently Jim Suhler played some slide for background music. Always good to see a home-boy get some press! And if iTunes can survive, it's not that hard to imagine good music at CD-or-better quality audio for sale using the same distribution medium. My fear is that the cheaper medium almost always wins. Money's tight these days for the average guy. We're dumbing-down as a culture. Bush is the president, after all... AT Artie -- Les Cargill |
|
#33
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
In article , Les Cargill
wrote: I am saying that other companies will develop and distribute iTunes clones, and that it'll drown when the supply way exceeds demand. You make it sound trivial. Pulling off what Apple has done ain't. Remember there are already other companies selling music online today and most people could care less. Their software sucks compared to the simplicity and power of iTunes. Like most software. Sure, people will try to catch up. And Jobs will move the bar higher. And any new suitors will need to get the licensing. I wouldn't be surprised if at least one of the majors decides to do it by themselves and not license their library to anyone. I think Apple's deals are just for a couple of years and specific to the US. David Correia Celebration Sound Warren, Rhode Island www.CelebrationSound.com |
|
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
|
|
#36
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
"Tommy Bowen" wrote in message news:3f0c6396_3@newsfeed...
I find that an odd comment. I have never, ever, ever bought a CD and thought, "Oh well, I can probably re-sell it later and get some of my money back." Just like guitar strings, VHS movies from Wal-Mart or the "Ocen Blue Mist" air freshener. Some things I buy with the attitude "Well, if I don't like it, I won't buy it agian". Not a criticism or anything, just a different mindset I guess. I guess it's the disposable music attitude vs. the obsessive collector. But I just don't think the make-your-own-compilation-at-the-store-box would work because the people who like disposable music are already perfectly happy with mp3s. Using the term "resale value" was kind of stupid I'll admit, but people I know with large broad record collections tend to go through every once in a while and weed out stuff that's just collecting dust. It saves space and gives you store credit to buy more of the stuff. You know, just like a junky pawning his guitar! |
|
#37
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
|
|
#38
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
david wrote in message ...
In article , Joe wrote: a lot of good stuff! Yep, very well made products (macs, ipods, itunes). As usual with mac they all work 100% in sync with each other, they don't fuss and fight like PC crap. Totally rocks. Great ideas, great application of those ideas, great end product, end of story. -B to the H |
|
#39
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Look, guys, there may be a flood of imitators of itunes. Maybe it will swamp
Apple. But maybe it won't. Look at the number of products that have taken over control regardless of quality: Starbuck's and Pro-Tools come immediately to mind. Sometimes getting there with an easily-remembered brand-name gets you a toehold that you can expand into an iron grip. As for the economics...I suspect that Apple *is* pulling a Gillette here, and that the product really is the songs, with ipod sales secondary. Look at a couple of numbers; if you have 5 million subscribers (not far off from what they already have) who each download 10 songs a month, you gross just under 50 million bucks a month, or just 600 million a year. Even if you only make a dime on each download (which I would guess is about the margin i-tunes is working at), you've made about 60 million bucks in a year, which isn't peanuts. And that's assuming only 5 million subscribers. If you get 4x that many, marketing to Wintel users, you're making approximately a quarter-billion a year profit. This also is not peanuts. Even if competitors siphon off a chunk of the market, you're still talking about serious money. Apple has been working very, very hard to establish the brand name and establish themselves as the pre-eminent legal downloading site, presumably with the idea of avoiding too much competition. It's risky to bet on anything in business, but I suspect they can pull it off. Peace, Paul |
|
#40
|
|||
|
|||
|
I-tunes: Why only for Mac's, and what exactly are you buying?
Charles Thomas wrote:
Maybe you won't, but a few million other people already have. Five billion flies can't be wrong. LOL... snobbery. "Boo hoooooo... I'm such the audiofile that .ACC files sound like ass to me... I can't bear to listen to them! The horror! The horror!" AbsoLUTEly. Dam straight, bubba. I can listen to them, but I'd rather have the full story, since records are an archival medium for myself, not a transient. It's nice of these people to take time out of their busy schedule of bitching about how the CD era is going to be regarded as the "era of lost performances" to post about iTunes. Ironic, ain't it? I am not one of the CD bashers, BTW. People with such objections aren't iTunes target market anyway because they probably don't even buy CDs. After all, nothing lives up to their audiophile specs except their carefully-stored collector's set of Bach's complete Brandenberg Concerto on thicker vinyl from 1979. Naw, I am but a leather-eared hack. I just find the very idea of paying some schmuck for .mp3 files abhorrent. Actually, why even buy records? Just attend concerts and be done with it. That is, if you can refrain from bitching about the sonic limitations of microphones, cables, and PA speakers. Dependent on the concert, this may or may not be true. And it is as much part of the problem as .mp3 . Cry me a river. Apple's come up with an easy way to deliver legal downloads of decent quality music to my hard drive with a click of a button, and for a reasonable price. I can make CDs and have copies of songs to listen to that I would NEVER buy otherwise. Assuming I don't want to buy an entire Gordon Lightfoot CD to get "Sundown" or an entire Counting Crows CD to get "American Girls", what's out there that's better? Radio. Does anybody remember radio? Of course, it was not a $.99 slot machine for music, either. The present movement in media is to see just how much stuff that used to be free that people will now pay for. Maybe that makes sense, maybe it doesn't. The system wasn't broke. Why in the f*** did it get fixed? iTunes is a win for the artists, it's a win for me, and it's a win for Apple. Well good for y'all. Wait 'til the bloom is off the lily and they start cost reducing the thing. I see it as an attempt to shift the balance of power in the media business, and it's anybody's guess where the ball will land on the roulette wheel. FWIW, I am principally a technology person, and it galls me to see people desperately trying to justify all those technology dollars being "invested" by something as short in the ports as iTunes. There's no real value-added here at all - just novelty. For anyone to poo-poo it comes across as such sour grapes when there's nothing even close currently. CT -- Les Cargill |
Linear Mode
