MacMinute and Maccentral have live coverage on the Apple online music initiative. Macslash also reports: “Steve Jobs announced a new music download service from Apple to go along with the new iPod and the updated version of iTunes. The music service offers a song catalog of over 200,000 songs from the top 5 record labels. It will allow unlimited burning to CDs, and will play on up to 3 Macs. There’s a catch with the burning, though. It will require you to change a playlist after 10 burns in order to burn again. Online 30-second previews are available for each song, as is cover art. The service will include artists not available in other online catalogs.“
New Music Download Service From Apple
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
Bah. not for us …..
Hopefully this will change
This is not really news and is not OS related, but either way a music download service does not rush me to the store to buy a new Mac. Nothing wrong with Mac, Macs are wonderful computers. But I see no need for a download music service
I’m not so sure this service will take off. First of all, 99 cents is a bit steep for an encoded song, when for $12+ you can get an entire cd on the physical medium in case you lose the files. I also don’t like the idea of having to reshuffle the playlist every 10 burns or so. If I own the songs, I think I should be able to do whatever I want with them. Although I do understand where apple is coming from with the possible piracy issues, I think it is blown out of proportion. The same argument was used for tape recorders first came out, then for cd burners being used to copy cds, and now encoded media.
All they offer is 128 kbps files? Yes, I understand that AAC is so much better then constant-bitrate mp3, but the bitrate still makes me skeptical. How does it’s quality compare to lame 192 CBR, lame –alt-preset extreme and ogg?
99 cents is a great price for music. think about it…you pay 12 bucks fro a cd that has mabye 3 songs that are worth the price on it. with this service you get 12 songs for 12 dollors that you like.
and second. why should you care about the 10 burn limit on the play list? just reorganise the list if you have some weird need for more than 10 copies of a cd (why you need more than one at any one time is beyond me, and I am sure they will place a time limit of say a year on it so after a year you can burn that exact playist again).
Canada. *sigh*
99¢ us is too expensive IMO. And no metal bands category. *double sigh*
Also note: I want an iPod now more than ever!
From Apple AAC propaganda:
AAC compressed audio at 96 kbps generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 kbps. AAC at 128 kbps provides significantly superior performance than does MP3 at 128 kbps.
I think I can assume from this piece, that Apple considers 96 kbps AAC to be between 128 and 160 kbps mp3, and (assuming more or less linear scaling) 128 kbps AAC would probably be between 160 and 192 kbps. However, I am already able to download 192, 256 and sometimes even 320 kbps full albums from p2p networks.
No metal category means they got less choise then kazaa (and that the service is absolutely useless to me). I think I get the message: Macs are for the creative personalities that listen to 99% recycled pop. Think different, eh?
and second. why should you care about the 10 burn limit on the play list? just reorganise the list if you have some weird need for more than 10 copies of a cd (why you need more than one at any one time is beyond me, and I am sure they will place a time limit of say a year on it so after a year you can burn that exact playist again).
I think they are just trying to keep people from burning hundreds of copies – or at least making it harder.
They will probably just put a burn counter in the playlist xml.
But even if they make it more complicated – I don’t see anything indicating that you couldn’t delete the playlist and then go make the exact same playlist to burn. I doubt they will keep track of every playlist ever made on your computer.
NB the service will only be available in the USA !
Happy because it looks fab and the ipods look neat and for their size, work out cheaper compared to the older models.
Sad because its US only which is crap considering half of Apples sales are non-US anyway, i wouldn’t mind if this service was going to appear outside the US say a month later but there has been no word (just like with the iphoto album creation features that are unavailable outside the US). Apple shouldn’t split the world into regions, but i can understand this, if they were phasing this in gradually so they can handle the new business.
I’ve just started moving my personal mp3 files to 160kbits, i’m not downloading anything until i can get higher quality.
Anyway, thats 2 negatives against one positive, until that changes i’m not buying.
debman:
that’s because you buy crappy CD’s
I can’t really come to think of any CD I’ve bought in the last four years that has had one bad song on it. And I’m very picky. Perhaps that’s the reason I spend a lot of time to find quality music instead of buying whatever they advertise on TV. My point being, if you feel that you don’t get enough good music for your money then perhaps you should look around a bit.
Apple once again makes it better and easier. The arguments against apple just keep getting weaker and weaker and weaker. The way apple has integrated this into iTunes, removing the need for a browser is just masterful. And then it goes into the iPod with zero pain. Who else can do all this? NOBODY. Why? Because apple makes the hardware, they make the OS, they make software, they make the online component (.macservice/music store/etc.) You see guys, get it yet?
” Who else can do all this? NOBODY”
Er, this is actually done by many companies. It’s called Selling More Stuff To Your Customers. It’s alot easier than finding new customers.
There’s nothing very gee-whiz in selling downloads, Apple is one of many online distributors.
There, that said, I’m recommending “Maria Lando” as sung by Susana Baca as worth 99 cents of anyone’s whimsy account.
…. well if the service is coming to windows, why not?
Its about the only part of this announcenemt that has any interest to me….
Apple becomes essentially a music publisher with direct access to 25 million rich customers. Not a bad beginning.
Of course, the $1/MP3 fee is way too much for normal people, but for Mac people it is probably about right.
The new iPod is a super piece of technology, but it certainly costs a lot of money. And if Apple has only sold 700,000 of them, it seems like it still shouldn’t be core business. Where would Apple be if they put this much energy into their computers vs. their entertainment toys?
Overall, good to see Apple branching out, if only to escape the current boredom of the Wintel world.
Well at least they might have some sort of market for this nonsense with Apple consumers. Who seem to have more money then sense. Though anyone else knows this is going nowhere fast once outside Mac fantasy.
Is there a way to download these on my Mac and then play them on my Linux desktop. I realize this isn’t Apple’s concern, just curious for my own sake.
I think I get the message: Macs are for the creative personalities that listen to 99% recycled pop. Think different, eh?
Without trying to overly flame, this is one of the dumbest comments I’ve read in a long time, said only in an attempt to be spiteful. Think about it. This is still a new method of distributing music, and it has yet to be shown whether it will be successful. Because of this, a lot of companies are probably pretty hesitant to license their music for distribution in this manner. If you were Apple, courting the music companies, wouldn’t your goal be to get the best-selling artists? Then your service would have the best chance of large sales, which would prove the idea a success. Once it’s successful (assuming that ever happens), they can throw up all sorts of music; there’s certainly no incentive for them not to offer you something that you’d want to buy if those who hold the licenses will let them.
If I could only have 3 games ported to my new console, you’d better believe I would choose the most popular games over some unpopular ones, even if certain players claimed they were better.
First of all, 99 cents is a bit steep for an encoded song, when for $12+ you can get an entire cd on the physical medium in case you lose the files.
Assume $12 + $1 for blank CD (which, of course, is ridiculously high for a blank CD). Most CDs I buy are $16.99. Sounds pretty good to me, and it’s a lot more convenient.
Sad because its US only which is crap considering half of Apples sales are non-US anyway
Since copyright laws are different around the world, and since (I’m assuming) the music industry works differently in other countries, you have to start somewhere.
The way apple has integrated this into iTunes, removing the need for a browser is just masterful
Not having my Mac plugged in at the moment, I can’t verify, but isn’t iTunes just displaying HTML within its window? You do realize that any Windows software could do just the same thing, right?
Who else can do all this? NOBODY
This is ridiculous. I certainly don’t want to take anything away from Apple, who often do a great job with things (and their music store looks to be another winner), but what on earth would keep, say, Creative from doing this with their Muvo line? Have, say, MusicMatch (as Apple chose for the Windows iPod) add some support for online shopping using IE with OLE as Winamp does for its Shoutcast listings, and create the online store. I don’t see where on earth the OS of all things factors into this. It’s not about “getting it”; it’s about your delusion that only Apple can do anything that’s cool. Sure, there are certain areas like digital video where Apple’s ability to move the entire vertical line of their products gave them a unique ability to add both editing software and firewire, but to claim that no one else could make an online music service is a rather ridiculous claim.
Apple once again makes it better and easier. The arguments against apple just keep getting weaker and weaker and weaker. The way apple has integrated this into iTunes, removing the need for a browser is just masterful. And then it goes into the iPod with zero pain. Who else can do all this? NOBODY. Why? Because apple makes the hardware, they make the OS, they make software, they make the online component (.macservice/music store/etc.) You see guys, get it yet?
Appleforever, it seems that Jobs way of speaking has gotten into you : “masterful”, “zero pain”. All hype words, don’t you have better arguments.
As for the integration, I don’t like Big Brother controlling every aspect of my computer life.
That said I believe that Apple is in the right position to show the music industry that people will be willing to use this kind of service in the future. The small size of the Mac market will assure the music industry that piracy won’t spread too much. But $0.99 is too much, I mean that’s what it cost me on cd with bettter quality. Make it 10 cents and it will be a success.
What I do find tragic is the number of songs available, 200,000 is a lot of music but how many songs are really listenable. I mean I never buy mnusic from the Big 5, I’ve always been listening to indie and techno label, most of the time I’m listenning to music only available on vinyl, when Im lucky I can find a mp3 rip on the net.
As for the format, AAC is an MPEG 2 or MPEG-4 audio codec, i don’t know which profile they will be using. AAC is the not the best sounding codec as AAC+ is already better, but it’s in the range of Ogg quality, and a little better than mp3.
The new iPod is nice, the games are really killer apps for this kind of decive. And the price is right, I’m goiing to buy one ASAP
People have been questioning the quality of AAC 128kbps. Well, in some cases, it is even better than WAV audio. That’s right, better than what’s on your CD – if mastered from the original (obviously it cannot improve your audio CDs). Ripping from audio CDs, it is indistinguishable from CD audio to audio experts (that means that they pick the AAC file as often as they pick the CD original in listening tests). MP3 at 320kbps won’t beat it. This is according to the people that developed MP3 and AAC. Believe it if you want. I don’t care. Of course, I’m sure you (collective) haven’t used AAC before deciding that it sounds poorly.
As for price, it will be acceptable to most people. Believe it or not, most people don’t listen to an entire CD. They just have 1-3 songs that they like. This servicve allows people to buy those songs piecemeal. Apple probably could have offered a cheaper price, but they would have had to put more DRM restrictions (like only being able to burn it to one CD or only using it on one computer).
I am hesitant to say this, but I bet that there would be a lot less critical comments if Apple had decided to support Windows today rather than the end of the year.
duh, Apple cant offer the service internationally until all the legal stuff is solved. just like the movie industry , the music industry has a different schedule to release music and market each artist in in different markets. Aditionally, each big music subsidiary in each continent has its own regional catalog to promote, it’s not only US artists. Furthermore, royalties and copyrights follow very different rules in each country.
Well if they do port iTunes to Win32, they better make sure that the group of people responsible for the Windows QuickTime port have NOTHING to do with it.
“99 cents is a great price for music. think about it…you pay 12 bucks fro a cd that has mabye 3 songs that are worth the price on it”
Debman,
Like rain said, few cd’s have just a few good songs. If a group is worth anything they will have a cd full of good songs. I can’t say I have bought a cd in a long time that was just 3 or so good songs. At best i have a cd with a song or 2 i don’t care for. For most people anymore they have heard the songs on the cd allready before buying it thanks to things like kazza so they know if it’s worth it or not, and if it’s group they like they will buy it no matter what. If I knew there would be only a song or 2 on a cd that I would like, I wouldn’t buy it. Maybe buy the single or something, but more then likely would just download it of Kazaa. That’s just something for artist to learn, if you can’t put out a cd full of good songs, it’s not worth people buying your cd, go back and do better or wait till you have a build up of songs instead of popping out a cd every year.
Also a buck a song for something that is a compressed version of a song that doesn’t have solid media or anything else is not good. If i get a song i don’t want some mp3 or what ever. I want a 50 meg file. and more so i want it to be in some form of production solid media that leaves it free from my computer.
actualy….I have not bought a CD in 5 years. and I don’t bother wasting my time downloading MP3s from Pirats are us P2P services.
and if you like every song that your fav bands pump out than good for you…I know they are happy to have a fan as enthusiastic abot there music as they are to get to check off that release on their contract.
and to everone else out there.
stop whining.Ihave never had any probles with the quality of 128 MP3s…everyting else is just loat…if you wanted good encoding then why bother using a lossy format at all?
Sean:
So Apple says that 96 kbps AAC “generally exceeded the quality of MP3 compressed audio at 128 kbps”, and you argue that after adding just 32 more kbps CD quality (as opposed to AAC compression) becomes the factor that limits quality? Frankly speaking, this fells like bullshit of the “G3 beats all x86 crap” variety.
bkakes:
I can understand that some of the sections may be not be populated well enough after the launch. However, having no metal section is something absolutely weird.
you and rain are either full of it or diluted or lucky as hell you like bands that sell quality music.
MOST music out there sucks period. and that means most CDs suck period. I personaly enjoy Korn and have since thier first album. every song on every album is good. same goes for tool. but for the rest of the music out there, it sucks.
that Apple is bound by the record companies as to terms of what songs, and what bit rate to sell at right?
“People have been questioning the quality of AAC 128kbps. Well, in some cases, it is even better than WAV audio. That’s right, better than what’s on your CD – if mastered from the original (obviously it cannot improve your audio CDs). Ripping from audio CDs, it is indistinguishable from CD audio to audio experts (that means that they pick the AAC file as often as they pick the CD original in listening tests). MP3 at 320kbps won’t beat it. This is according to the people that developed MP3 and AAC. Believe it if you want. I don’t care. Of course, I’m sure you (collective) haven’t used AAC before deciding that it sounds poorly.”
The big question then, is have the files been mastered from the original recordings using this technology? If not, then how does this actually compare to bitrates in the 160+ range? I do all my encoding in the 192 VBR range.
To the person claiming not to hear a difference between 128 and higher encodings, I don’t know what to tell you. I certainly can tell the difference. And that’s just using my rio volt in my car through a tape adapater. We’re not talking high quality equipment here…
The fact is no different than the whole MHz wars. Don’t bother with this service as it ONLY uses 128 bit encoding. I know 128 bit encoding for most mp3s suck. So how does this ACTUALLY sound?
I don’t have a mac so I can’t say. And my Riovolt doesn’t play AAC encoded stuff ( to my knowledge – and my model no longer has firmware updates ).
So does anyone actually have any of this stuff encoded with AAC to give even a subjective “I’ve tried it” opinion?
More than one Jared cruising OSNews….
OK, in spite of the fact that Apple’s servers are currently overloaded, I did poke around (mostly searching and previewing) the music store. While they don’t have everything (obviously), there is a lot of interesting material to be found. And $.99 or $9.99 for a song or an album, respectively, is a very good price. Considering my tendency to rip a new CD to my computer, transfer it to my iPod, and never look at the CD again, I am very tempted to use this service instead of buying a physical CD for any albums available online from now on. Also, it will be fun downloading individual tracks from artists I don’t like enough to warrant purchasing all their albums.
The big news here, however, isn’t Apple’s service in terms of features, but the fact that this service exists in the first place. Might we finally be looking at a kinder, gentler RIAA?
Jared
—
http://www.theideabasket.com
You said: ” It’s not about “getting it”; it’s about your delusion that only Apple can do anything that’s cool.”
NO, it’s about your delusion, and lots of other PC heads, that making the whole box (hardware, OS, apps and online service) has no advantages, and conversely, that there is no cost, no disadvantage (it’s all just plus, plus, plus, no minus) to having 10 different companies making the package as in the wintel world.
You are all living in a delusion on that one.
You said: ” It’s not about “getting it”; it’s about your delusion that only Apple can do anything that’s cool.”
NO, it’s about your delusion, and lots of other PC heads, that making the whole box (hardware, OS, apps and online service) has no advantages, and conversely, that there is no cost, no disadvantage (it’s all just plus, plus, plus, no minus) to having 10 different companies making the package as in the wintel world.
You are all living in a delusion on that one.
I haven’t checked it out yet but like my quick review of the Maccentral story noticed, us 40-somethings lost a lot of love for music a long time ago. We’re the audiofiles. We want high-quality music files for a decent price — new or old.
I’m not on a Mac, so we’ll have to see what this service brings to the PC.
Vic
But $0.99 is too much, I mean that’s what it cost me on cd with bettter quality.
1. CD’s usually cost me $15-18 for 10-12 songs. That’s about $1.25 per song
2. Buying bulk should give a discount, right?
3. It’s convenient to listen to a clip and then buy the song
4. At the store a single costs about $3 and not all songs are available as singles. With this every song is available as a single and they cost $0.99. Sounds like a good deal.
Once again, Apple is taking something that everyone *thought* about, but hasn’t actually put it into practical use. To combine it with the excellent iTunes and their extremely successful iPod is just a no brainer. It’s a good way to get people interested in the platform, even if there is a Windows option.
I think this is an excellent example to the music industry that downloadable media CAN work. It’s time to move on with newer technology, RIAA, not waste your money on pointless attempts to combat piracy.
NO, it’s about your delusion, and lots of other PC heads, that making the whole box (hardware, OS, apps and online service) has no advantages, and conversely, that there is no cost, no disadvantage (it’s all just plus, plus, plus, no minus) to having 10 different companies making the package as in the wintel world.
You are all living in a delusion on that one.
Umm……I never said it has no advantages. Quite to the contrary, had you read my post (which it sure sounds like you didn’t), I mentioned digital video as an example where it definitely had advantages. I just said that it isn’t an advantage in every case–a pretty simple point, really, which you didn’t bother to address (again, because I doubt you actually read my post). As I said, for example, making the OS provides no real advantage for a digital music service. There are a lot of companies that could make a digital music service. It looks like Apple’s is the best so far, but that has nothing to do with their making the hardware and OS (computers, not the iPod; obviously making the iPod was a big difference in this case).
I’ll spare you the details of my life, but I’ll just leave by saying that I find it profoundly ironic that you call me a “PC head” without knowing anything about me.
…and someone mentioned itunes having html inside for the music store.
I don’t think that is correct, It looks like its using web services.
It is pretty seductive (the music store), you have a 30 sec preview, and there is the buy button right there.
The aac quality of the previews is very good- I have a good audio set up (going thru a mackie to jbl studio monitors).
Couldn’t you just independently copy the first CD you burned? Or is there some special encoding mechanism that I missed?
Help me, where can I see the keynote? Sorry to post it on two topics…but two hours and still not any success…damm google…:-)
itunes keeps track by registering 3 macs….there isnt anything flagged in the song itself.
u can also stream over the net and /or with rendezvous
now inside itunes.
Personally I don’t think I’ve ever paid $16+ for a CD, 90% of my collection has been bought online for quite a lot less than that, even on Amazon most CDs aren’t that expensive. I would estimate that 12 tracks is about the average, although looking at my collection there are quite a few albums with 15-20 tracks that I picked up for <$10. Overall I doubt it would ever save me more than a couple of dollars and sometimes might work out more expensive.
I obviously haven’t listened to the tracks Apple have encoded, but I can usually tell the difference between 256kbps MP3s and the original CDs. For me to accept even a small loss of quality the price would have to be a lot less. To be honest it’s the poor sound quality rather than moral/legal issues that makes me buy CDs rather than downloading everything from WinMX.
Also, one of the big arguments for this kind of service is that you can just select the good songs from an album. Out of my 500+ CDs there are only a few individual tracks that I skip, most of my CDs don’t have a single song I really dislike and wouldn’t want on the CD. Overall I would have saved very little by just buying the tracks I like, so this doesn’t seem like much of an advantage to me.
But even if you do only like a few songs on the CD, how do you know which are the good ones before you’ve bought the CD and actually listened to it? Listening to 30 second samples hardly gives a real impression of the track, or how it fits into the album. A lot of the songs I love have barely finished the intro after 30 seconds, and there are tracks I don’t care for individually that work brilliantly as part of an album.
I wish Apple every success, but I can’t imagine ever using this service and I really can’t see it being a commercial success.
At the risk of upsetting a lot of people I just have to point out that I very much doubt that most people have got the equipment to be able to tell the difference between an MP3, AAC, Ogg or raw WAV encoding of a music track. You might well have the speakers, etc. but it’s unlikely that your sound card has the dynamic range to exploit them. Sorry to be sounding like a troll, but it’s the truth… Most people who claim to be able to tell the difference are talking about a comparison between a music system and their PC/Mac/whatever. Pretty much anything above the 192kbps (although it varies with the different format, especially with adaptive compression algorithms) will sound the same from your average “high quality” sound card – and by “high quaility” I’m talking Creative, etc. not budget.
scuk
you’re wrong.
smiles
It’s not directed at anyone in particular and, perhaps, in your case it doesn’t apply; however, in the majority of cases people are making invalid comparisons and claiming better/worse audio quality when they’re comparing apples and pears. It’s probably of no real interest to anyone, but I think it important to dispell the FUD, but I spend a lot of my time testing audio cards (I work in radio) and am constantly amazed at:
1. The abysmal quality of computer audio cards in general.
2. The FUD people are willing, either purposefully (for whatever reason!?!) or out of ignorance, to propogate about the supposed quality of their computer audio.
Anyone reading through this group with limited knowledge of audio and encoding standard, etc. (and remember, not everyone with an interest in OSs is an audiophile) would be concerned about the “quality” of the audio the Apple service is offering, despite it being – to all intents and purposes) – no better or worse than pretty much anything else out there…
scuk
“The big question then, is have the files been mastered from the original recordings using this technology? If not, then how does this actually compare to bitrates in the 160+ range? I do all my encoding in the 192 VBR range.”
AAC at 128 kbs is every bit as good if not better than mp3 at 192 kbs. I’ve done side by side comparisons with good headphones (Grados if you care), and it’s virtually indistinguishable from the original CD source.
I’m still buying the new 15GB iPob however…
I agree 30 seconds is short. Especially for me, I like Dance & Trance stuff, of which many tracks are 5 – 10 minutes long.
Being in Australia I obviously can’t use the store ATM, so if it says something different inside the store then cést la vie, but nothing on Apple’s site says that the previews are the first 30 seconds of the song; they could be any 30 seconds of the song. Every song is different, after all, and that’s the point.
I’ve been coming here a long time and this thread has some of the dumbest remarks I’ve ever seen.
For those who see no need for a legit music download service, have you happened to notice the utter and total freefall the music industry is and has been in? What the music companies and Apple are doing is part of the solution.
They have 200,000 tunes right now. If they don’t have everything you want, have you thought that perhaps Apple’s library will grow, both in numbers of sngs and genre?
Those who believe only rich people can have Macs and they are anxious to throw money around at anything are so lacking in knowledge. That seems to be your respense to everything you don’t understand.
Apple is doing exciting things. Those of you who cannot grasp this should go to the Apple website and see what you get when you buy a Mac and everything else they’ve got going. You will be surprised.
The quality of sound through a cheap card tends to be very poor, it’s fine for games but music sounds horrible. I’ve never used one that has sound quality I find acceptable, I’d agree that the low quality tends to destroy any advantage from better encoding.
But I haven’t tried a more high end sound card like the Sound Blaster Audigy 2 Platinum, from what I’ve heard the sound quality can be great. Personally I always burn any MP3s onto CD and play them on my Hi-Fi, rather than trying to get high quality sound out of my PC.
There’s been a mistake about the audio quality… According to Apple’s web site:
AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 (32 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible(6), AIFF, WAV
everyone complaining when this has just been announced and only one person who has posted has bothered to go to Apples website and listen.
No matter what Apple does, there will always be complaints from people. I wonder what would have happened if Microsoft were to have announced this service?
Oops… forgot to post the URL
I’ll take some back of what I said – I just get frustrated when people won’t admit any downsides to anything on the wintel side.
On your point, I just think you are wrong about apple’s making the whole shebang had nothing to do with this musci service being as good as it is.
By the way that’s not MY opinion, that’s the opinion of record execs are artists that have said, hey somebody finally did this right.
The sad thing is that apple does tons right, but people either are ignorant about it (which is fine, that’s normal) or they just play the denial game because they like building a PC so much.
Been checking it out since installing iTunes 4. I see this as just really convenient music shopping. 99 cents for a song you really like now and then isn’t bad at all. I’m sure most people blow more than that a day on things that won’t bring them half as much enjoyment / entertainment – especially if you like music. I may occasionally buy a song that catches my ear. Anyway, did anybody happen to notice the Request and Feedback section in the Music Store? Should you happen to actually own a Mac and care for more than the popular music offered, there are two things you can do: Vote with your wallet (pointless if you hate the current selection, i know) and Vote with the Song Request form. It can only get better as if this picks up steam.
Ultimately, I can’t imagine the kind of hoop-jumping Apple had to do to bring people this kind of service with relatively lax rights management. With each attempt at a new kind of music distribution model it seems things get more refined. At least this service doesn’t make computer owners feel like criminals.
I am browsing the site, seems more responsive now,, and the selection is good, Im in the classic and world section btw. it;s not bad at all
i don’t have time to spend being a phd in music, researching albums and ONLY buying those that nave NO bad songs.
and I quote “that’s because you buy crappy CD’s
I can’t really come to think of any CD I’ve bought in the last four years”
i’ve got two jobs, 8 computers, 3 dogs, 4 kids, 3 cars, a morgage, a wife, church functions, little league and i’m a part time volunteer admin.
occassionaly i’ll hear a song that i like, and i would like a copy.
99 cents sounds like a steal.
The new Beck and Wilco. $10 a piece. Sound quality seems good to me. I almost bought the Beck for 18 plus tax at Barnes and Noble the other day.
The coolest thing is the way you can browse and search just exactly like the rest of iTunes. There is no functional difference between browing and searching the service’s library and your own, when you use the browse button.
There’s quite a bit of music. I hope more comes.
“Anyone reading through this group with limited knowledge of audio and encoding standard, etc. (and remember, not everyone with an interest in OSs is an audiophile) would be concerned about the “quality” of the audio the Apple service is offering, despite it being – to all intents and purposes) – no better or worse than pretty much anything else out there..”
Anyone other than someone who cares about audio will not be able to distinguish a crappy 128 kbs mp3 from the CD, let alone better formats / higher bit rates. If you care that much about quality, you’re not going to download any music at all but instead buy the CD and listen to it on an expensive hi-fi rig. 128 kbs aac = 192 kbs mp3 and is more than enough quality for 99.9% of the population. For the rest, nothing is ever good enough.
The music selection is good but even with my meager musical tastes I still couldn’t find some of the music I was looking for. Hopefully this will change over time. I was able to sample a lot of different music in short amount of time.
The interface is nice and shopping for music is easy and fast. You will need an Apple ID. Signing up is easy, you can configure it within iTunes. Once signed up browse for the music you are looking for and and click “Buy Now”.
The music is downloaded to your iTunes Library. I did a “Get Info” on the music I just downloaded. It shows the “Kind” as Protected AAC audio file. The Bit Rate is 128kbps sampled at 44.100 kHz. It also shows the “Purchase by” info and “Apple ID”. A thumbnail of the album cover is included with the music.
I just connected and downloaded my first album. Apple did it again. This system is nothing short of groundbreaking. Simple, elegant, powerful. Offers people like me, who like eclectic and not mainstream music the capacity to browse a huge load of music intelligently, and buy where their hearts beats. This thing will be a huge hit. Watch Microsoft clone this in the next year or so.
This beats p2p hands down: You know what you get, price is adequate, service is impeccable. I am delighted to be able to browse cryptic music genres and make interesting discoveries.
Encoding quality is also superb.
That’s for the iPod, not for the music download service.
I tried out the new service. Even with 200,000 tunes. I couldn’t find any Dimitri Shostakovich or some of the anime soundtracks. But still a serendipitous search result gave me “The Lions Sleep Tonight” by the Tokens. An oldie that was used in Disney’ “Lion King”. They had 20 songs as an alblum. Some were decent. Since buying the lot for 9.99 was cheaper then $19.80 buying individually, I ordered the alblum. Sound quality does beat MP3 128 (which sound close to crap to me – dynamic range always seem compromised and high frequency always muddy- ACC seems better and clearer).
Also I did notice that the 30-second samples do not always start at the beginning. Many I heard made a solid effort to give the gist of the track.
I have over 400 CD’s, getting rid of the physical management, being able to playlist versus popping in a cd and programming just what you want to hear is a pain in the butt using a cd player keypad. iTunes puts out enough musical quality that the irritation of hasseling with a cd player is not worth it.
it is so good. oh and for 10 bucks for an entire album I think you get a realy good deal considering you do not have to pay shipping.
the new beck album is 12 songs….it costs 10 bucks
Apple offers this service in both it’s stores and in music stores such as Sam Goody’s, etc.
I’d love to be able to walk in, pick songs, and have them transferred to a CD for around $11.00. As it is now, you have to spend around $20.00 max for a CD and your lucky in you get 2 or 3 good songs on it. What a waste of money.
– Mark
Just got the music service up and running on my powerbook, and I’m shocked at the selection they were able to get. This is no MP3.com or any of those “record label ran” site. You have a VERY healthy selection of music to choose from. After surfing around, I found full albums that I bought months before for only 9.99! Compared to 14 plus for what I have to pay for in Washington State. I was a little pissed because I could have gotten it cheaper, and picked the songs that I actually wanted off the album.
I think this service will take off, and will be big, and probably help Apple stay afloat and keep the record labels happy, and push them to think in new directions of marketing and sales!
99 cents a song is just about right for what you get. You are sure to get quality music without any worries! This is something that should have been place into effect earlier.
Wow, they don’t have red hot chili peppers!!!
Also, I want some classic Eurodance in there!!
I love it. I never thought I would use this service, but after about 10 minutes of searching around, I bought 2 albums and a few other songs. Great job Apple!
And there is no Madonna or Cindi Lauper either!
eugenia @ Wow, they don’t have red hot chili peppers!!!
For Heaven’s sake, they’ve only been online for (less than) a day, give it some time.
eugenia @ And there is no Madonna or Cindi Lauper either!
You obviously aren’t a musician.
eugenia @ Also, I want some classic Eurodance in there!!
Since when was “Eurodance” classic? : O
Check out Andres Segovia, Julian Bream, Rush, Yes, Leo Kotke, Paganini, Al DiMeola.
I have been looking for an music service. Could someone check
the following artist?
Siouxsie and the Banshees
Cruxshadows
Switchblade Symphony
I have an anchient Mac around here someplace I could use.
(Cast off hardware never dies)
I did note looking in from the outside that I also need an .mac account which is another surcharge. hmmmmm
I wish Apple would make an generic front end. (My main computer is an Alpha/Linux and I can’t find the beta of 2000 for it , sigh. NT isn’t going to work….
Leslie D.
P.S. Sorry about the thoughts being randomly patched together, massive sinus infection.
For all the people who are skeptical about AAC – get something that can play/encode the format and so some tests for yourself. I guarantee you that 99% of the music listening public will not be able to tell the difference to save their lives. And if it takes you four or five listens to distinguish, that just proves how good it is doesn’t it? I personally encoded 4 songs, 1 rock, 1 jazz, 1 hip hop, and 1 classical piece at 128 bit rate AAC. I then copied the track out of iTunes and opened both the original CD track and the AAC track in Quicktime where you can play multiple items simultaneously. Switching back and forth while listening, I tried to hear the difference. I used a pair of flat response studio monitors to do the test. I’ve been playing, recording, and listening to music for a long time and I couldn’t tell the difference whatsoever. AAC is far superior to MP3. Don’t knock it till you’ve tried it!
you can make requests for artists/songs/albums that you don’t find on there. the request button is in the upper left on the home page of the music store. but jeez, the service is only a day old!
Thought I’d add my own story of using the iTunes store to the mix since so many comments here are coming from people who either haven’t or can’t try it out. I had no problems logging in for the first time and enabling my AppleID for the music store. From there I browsed around. I was a little disappointed that they didn’t have any Smashing Pumpkins or the CD Fashion Nugget by Cake. But there is a link right on the homepage for you to submit requests (which I did). At least they have that option. Given it’s no guarantee that they’ll be able to add the song tot he catalog but it is nice to know that you can make your voice heard.
While 200,000 songs may not seem like much, it is not bad for a single day debut considering that they managed to get the big 5 to cooperate. It is a bold experiment in an online distribution model and who knows, if it takes off maybe we’ll see the RIAA filing fewer lawsuits and concentrating on expanding these types of services.
I did manage to find a Mighty Mighty Bosstones CD that I was interested in (Live from the Middle East, 22 tracks) and just to do some comparison shopping I hit CDNow at amazon. Brand spankin’ new that CD sells on their site for about $24 and change, not including any possible shipping fees. I would imagine that it probably is similarly priced in record stores plus sales tax. Through the iTunes music store I grabbed the whole album for $9.99. I immediately burned it to CD and tested it out in my car stereo. I would have to say that to me there was a negligible difference between the CD I burned and say the Green Day almbum I purchased from the store. Perhaps there is a difference to those with audiophile ears and hey that’s cool. In that case if you’re a true audiophile you’re also probably listenting to vinyl.
This is not intended to be a be all end all solution for everybody. But there is certainly a market for it. I just saved friggin $15 on a CD. The most expensive ones I saw were in the $11.99 range and that was maybe 2 albums out of nearly 50 that I looked at. Most of them are $9.99 with a few priced ay $7.99 (Dookie, Green Day). For those who are commenting on how this is going to fail without even having used it, please reserve your comments until you get a chance to either try it out on the Windows version that will hopefully be released sooner rather than later, or until you try it out on a friend’s Mac. Otherwise you’re just spreading FUD and setting it up to fail (self-fulfilling prophecy).
well i showed up and i’m probably not apple’s target market (i’m an old-school funk and raregroove DJ) and i have to say apple probably has a hit on their hands. i spent a good hour or two browsing and listening to previews in my apartment while hanging and doing other things (isn’t this what a music store is supposed to be like?). everything was categorized decently (they can use some work on their year and genre tags), the previews were nice, and of course the iTunes interface is seemless to the music store. you don’t know you are anywhere different, you browse it like you browse your own music library, then click ‘add to cart’ and move on. very quick and seemless. i ended up picking up about 15 random tracks from a wide range of artists. i was digging some old jazz, some rare funk, and a couple of new hip-hop tracks. i also checked out some of the exclusive apple-only tracks (i love stuff like that).
a couple of points i’d like to about comments in this thread:
–the audio quality of 128k AAC is CLEARLY better than 128k mp3, and on my computer sounds even better than 192k mp3. the real test will be when i get these tracks into traktor dj and put them over a PA. 192k mp3 is the lowest quality i’ll play on a PA, and then only if encoded with LAME. i do wish apple would move one step higher on the AAC, i would think 192k AAC would rival 264+ mp3, which is getting dangerously close to cd-quality.
–this isn’t apple’s fault, but don’t let people convince you that cd-quality is the standard on which to judge. cd’s have all kinds of loss from the original recording. if it’s a new recording it’s probably done all in 48k or higher, cd’s have to cut that back down to 44k. old analog recordings also have a range far wider than what your trusted cd can handle. i’m a little bummed that cd quality has become the defacto standard when it itself is not a great spec. but that’s just me. perhaps as the technology allows we’ll equal cd quality online and then surpass it.
–$.99 is a decent price, especially if they keep pricing the albums at $10. the ‘custom cd’ element of it is what i like — i can piece together 10-15 tracks that are worth way more than $15 to me, and i simply cannot get that from any other source.
–service was flawless. i mean if apple could make things any easier it would be weird. apple always seems to find that line between easy and creepy.
–apple is notorious for weak first versions. almost everything apple has done has come back much stronger in the 2nd revision. perhaps if we keep letting them know that we want higher bitrates and more selection they will do it. i can’t wait, i may never have to go to a record store again.
–you need an apple ID to use the system, but these are free. if you also have a .mac account then you can use that, but there is no surchage to just sign up and use it. apple ID’s are free.
overall i think this could end up being big. i mean i bought something right away and don’t usually buy it cuz apple says it’s cool. but music is my thing and all of a sudden my little iTunes is the baddest music store in the world, and all i had to do was click the ‘buy’ button. nice!
raz
http://wfnk.com
I watched the announcement live, and FWIW, Steve did seem somewhat apologetic when he announced it would be available only in the USA. But he also said that “hopefully” it would be available to international users in the future.
I imagine it could be a complicated thing, as artists may have existing contracts with different record labels in different geographic regions to distribute their music.
“The big question then, is have the files been mastered from the original recordings using this technology? If not, then how does this actually compare to bitrates in the 160+ range?”
I’ll just give some input on this one… in his keynote, Steve Jobs made the IMHO outrageous claim that some of the 128 kbit AAC files sound *better* than the CDs, because they encoded them directly from the original recordings and not from CD. I’m quite sure he didn’t say *all* the music on the site was encoded this way, but at least some of it was.
As to the quality… at home last night I was playing around in the new service, and its very impressive. The selection right now is not mind-boggling, but it is impressive; and Apple promises this 200,000 tracks is just the beginning. All tracks have 30-second free previews in the same 128-kbps quality as the songs themselves, and to my ears they sound very good. I didn’t do careful comparisons to 160- or 192-kbps MP3s, but they sounded clearly and easily superior to 128 MP3s.
Just thought I’d throw in some comments on the pricing. All single tracks up to 7 minutes seem to be priced at $0.99. Single tracks over 7 minutes, instead of having “Buy” buttons, have links to their albums instead. This answers the questions like “What if an album has only two 30-minute tracks? Can I get it for $2?” No… if you want to buy a long track, you do have to buy the whole album. Maybe they’ll change that in the future and make some long tracks available individually for more $.
Album prices, as noted by others above, are typically $10, but vary. Some are more, some are cheaper. The most extreme case I saw was one classical album–a 2-disc set with 52 tracks–outrageously priced at around $30 for the download. I thought that was ridiculous, but then again, it was an exception (most are just $9.99) and I guess the record label–not Apple–was driving the price on it.
Anyway, overall I’m very impressed.