[bdegrande]

$19.99 total for the iPod Touch software upgrade. I will buy future sofrware and upgrades for the tTouch, but I buy my music from AmazonMP3 - I prefer the more common MP3 format, better bit rates, no DRM, and cheaper (or free if I drink enough Diet Pepsi).

[mdawson]

Why do people keep replying to the lead post instead of to the post to which they are actually responding?

OK, I'm leaving out cassettes but the less said about them, the better.

Actually, cassettes were not that bad if they were done right. Once I became aware of the differences between cassette types and noise reduction I only purchased high-bias Type IV (metal) cassettes and used Dolby C, later Dolby S, noise reduction for recording music from my vinyl collection for my regular music listening. For copies of mix tapes that went to friends, I used high-quality Type II (chrome) cassettes.

I even had a high-end, single well, 3-motor Sony cassette deck that was purchased specifically for the purpose of producing quality recordings. When that deck was replaced with a newer model that supported Dolby S, my recordings were difficult to distinguish from CDs when played on quality cassette decks such as my dual-deck Sony that was purchased specifically for playback purposes. Even the audiophiles at Stereo Review (now Sound & Vision) found that even the most astute and critical listeners were hard-pressed to discern CD audio from Type IV cassettes using Dolby S NR.

Of course cassettes lack random access capabilities or longevity and my decks have seen little action in the past 10+ years. I have not even unpacked them since I moved two years ago.

[mdawson]

…but I buy my music from AmazonMP3 - I prefer the more common MP3 format, better bit rates, no DRM, and cheaper (or free if I drink enough Diet Pepsi).

Higher bit rates are necessity for MP3 and not an advantage over AAC. MP3 is based on the archaic MPEG-1 codec and requires a bit rate of at least 192 Kbps (MP3 standard) for half decent sound quality. AAC is based in the more modern MPEG-4 codec, has a much better compression algorithm and therefore provides higher quality recordings overall and especially at lower bit rates. For the most part a 128 Kbps AAC file will be of significantly higher fidelity than a typical 192 Kbps MP3. An MP3 file would need to be encoded at a bit rate significantly higher than 192 Kbps to match the audio fidelity of AAC; AAC’s algorithm was designed to retain higher fidelity at lower bit rates, but differs little from MP3 at very high bit rates.

As to DRM, the labels are clearly acting as a cartel in collusion against Apple in this matter due to Apple’s consumer-friendly one price policy. No legitimate reason exists for Amazon to be provided DRM-free music from all four of the major labels while Apple only has a handful of DRM-free titles mostly from only two; most are from EMI by a wide margin. If the labels pulled this type of stunt with brick-and-mortar music stores they would have very quickly found themselves losing a class action suit.

[bdegrande]

I'm not anti-Apple at all, I have had them going back to the Apple ][. I still much prefer Amazon. I want my music in MP3 format. Virtually ANY other format will give you better fidelity at similar bit rates - AAC, WMA, Ogg, etc. - and none of them will play on nearly as many hardware and software platforms as MP3 will. The sound quality isn't an issue for me, I use my iPod walking around in noisy cities, even 128KB MP3s wouldn't bother me for this purpose.

It isn't my job to care whether Apple has DRM on songs because of the labels or its own decision. I beleive Steve Jobs when he says he wants DRM to go away. I am doing my part to help out in this effort by not buying it. If you don't buy music with DRM, DRM will disappear quickly. Buying a flawed product because the good guys (Apple) are marketing it is a bad mistake. Let the music vendors use methods like watermarking files which do not inconvenience the buyer.

[batchtaster]

{quote}as there would be some other hurdle ? the iPod's audio converter, for example.{quote}

Or the continued sense of entitlement and delusion of representing the demands of the market, particularly by way of ascribing failure or inferiority if these are not met. To whit:
{quote}"I want (...) !!!"{quote}

ObTopic: $0.00 so far. Meh, not much for music lately... anyone want to buy a $50 iTunes gift card?

[deasys]

bdegrande said:

I want my music in MP3 format. Virtually ANY other format will give you better fidelity at similar bit rates - AAC, WMA, Ogg, etc. - and none of them will play on nearly as many hardware and software platforms as MP3 will.

That was yesterday. Today, most devices support AAC so you can enjoy better fidelity and have ubiquitous playback as well.

bdegrande said:

I am doing my part to help out in this effort by not buying it. If you don't buy music with DRM, DRM will disappear quickly. Buying a flawed product because the good guys (Apple) are marketing it is a bad mistake.

No, you're doing your part to restore the balance of power back to the media cartel. Are you sure you want that?

Don't give them what they want.

[smax013]

mdawson said:

As to DRM, the labels are clearly acting as a cartel in collusion against Apple in this matter due to Apple’s consumer-friendly one price policy. No legitimate reason exists for Amazon to be provided DRM-free music from all four of the major labels while Apple only has a handful of DRM-free titles mostly from only two; most are from EMI by a wide margin. If the labels pulled this type of stunt with brick-and-mortar music stores they would have very quickly found themselves losing a class action suit.

Not to mention that as far as I can tell Amazon sells all their MP3s for the same or less (i.e. $0.99 or less) than Apple's iTunes Store does. Thus, it is not like the music labels a going to crush Apple's iTunes Store and replace it with a store that is selling content for more. In otherwords, the labels have already lost the end price point war and the ability to buy individual songs is here to stay. About the only potentially difference is if Amazon gives the labels more of the take than Apple. Otherwise, I would argue they are being stupid and should just let Apple sell DRM free stuff as it would likely present more upsides then downsides.



It is kind of similar to NBC no longer selling their shows on iTunes Store. It seems more like a "cut off my nose to spite my face" scenario to me in both cases.

[smax013]

bdegrande said:

It isn't my job to care whether Apple has DRM on songs because of the labels or its own decision. I beleive Steve Jobs when he says he wants DRM to go away. I am doing my part to help out in this effort by not buying it. If you don't buy music with DRM, DRM will disappear quickly. Buying a flawed product because the good guys (Apple) are marketing it is a bad mistake. Let the music vendors use methods like watermarking files which do not inconvenience the buyer.

One could argue that by not supporting Apple you are playing into the labels' wishes. The record labels would LOVE to see iTunes Store and Apple lose the position of power, which is likely why they only supply DRM free stuff to Amazon. Now, personallu, I am not sure I really see what diminshing Apple really gets them as they will not likely change the prices (Amazon also sells for $0.99 per song or less typically...I have yet to see anything that costs more) or the overall model (i.e. the ability to purchase single songs rather than have to purchase full album potentially with songs you don't wnat to get a song that you do want). Customers are used to $0.99 per song and the labels will have a tough time jacking up the price any time soon. This is not likely to change whether it is Apple or Amazon that is the dominate player in online music sales. Thus, I personally don't see much logic in the labels screwing over Apple...not to mention that as time passes, there is more and more of a chance of some someone suing for anti-trust/collusion claims as Amazon gains more dominance and the appears that the record labels are "working together" to punish Apple. And that doesn't even get into the potentially for further marketting black eyes for an industry that already has some due to suing innocent grandmothers and kids and treating their customers like criminals.

[DisabledTrucker]

In the last 5 years... I've maybe spent a total of $50 in the store... 2-$20 gift certificates that I passed to others and maybe a total of $10 in DRM free content when I needed to replace music I had lost or damaged the original disks, in a pinch. Though in the last 20 years, I may have spent double that altogether on music. Mostly I listened to cassettes before they went the way of the dodo and after the introduction of DVD's, they really shot down in cost too, $5-10 for a whole album compared to $15-20 for a DVD. Then MP3's come out and the audio quality was worse than FM radio, (it still is IMO,) next come AAC and it's not much better and they want more for these than the cassettes I used to buy. The sound quality and noises that all this digital equipment injects into the signal path gives me such a headache that I would rather not bother to listen to music anymore unless it's live, even then a lot of it doesn't appeal to me, especially when it's digitized. Okay analog audio wasn't that great either but, at least it didn't give me migraines either.
Their movies selection is one of the best out there for the Mac, granted but, the only way to get HD movies is to own an aTV, why should I have to purchase that to watch the movies in my 24" iMac? The other movies are barely VHS quality and for the price, it's not worth it to me. I can purchase the HD-DVD for little more than what they charge for the movie, get more on it, and I can watch it full quality on my iMac after I rip it to it. Even my regular DVD's look better on my iMac than the movies they sell/rent, so what makes them think I'm going to pay them for those?
If I want to read a book, I go get the book, I don't need someone else to read it to me. I NEVER cared for any "Audio book" even the ones on tape, and I can care even less for the digital versions of them now.
Games for the iPod? What a joke! I don't own a iPod, and if I did, it wouldn't be to play games on it. Now if the games were for the Macs, I might would consider purchasing some of them, if they were actually worth having. Sorry, Pac Man, Tetris, and all those other flash games aren't worth my money either, it would have to be some first run, big name game, such as Need For Speed, Halo, F.E.A.R., or something to that effect, and not be something that's already a has been before it come to the Mac.

[mdawson]

> {quote:title=smax013 wrote:}{quote}
>
> It seems more like a "cut off my nose to spite my face" scenario to me in both cases.
Like a great many corporate execs, they seem to suffer from a bad case of avaritia myopia . Actually, the content providers in particular seem to have the more virulent avaritia myopia tyrannus —not to be confused with the bad case of avaritia tyrannus with which Microsoft is infected—given their “need” to control content even after a copy has been legally purchased.

[ilarynx]

Conducting spectrographic tests, while interesting and informative DOES NOT MATTER. I AM THE CUSTOMER and I want my DVD player to display the FULL ELECTROMAGNETIC SPECTRUM including infa-red and ultra-violet. It doesn't matter if I can see them or not. I am the customer and that is what I want!!!
----------------------------
+95% of the people cannot hear the difference between the standard format on the iTunes Store and the 44kHz audio files. (I suspect that probably 50% of those 5% who SAY they can hear the difference, really can't.) Similar arguments were made when CDs started to replace LPs. "The sound is not as 'warm'" - There were probably those who complained that 78s weren't as good as Edison's wax cilinders too.
Remember, the vast majority of this music will be played on iPods, with ear-bud speakers half the size of a pinky fingernail. If you want to hear your music in an acoustically neutral designed room over your Infinity speakers on your Carver amp, sure, MP3s are probably not the way to go.
ANY sound REproduction system is going to have compromises of some sort. It's all fine and good to strive for higher fidelity, but taking it to Don Quixote levels is a bit silly.
Why settle for 44kHz? DEMAND 88kHz!!!

[macbigot]

> Total: $2315.60
Yow.
So, how have the past five years treated you?
[/quote]
Whoa. I have two kids and a wife -- so no $200 free to spend on an iPod, nor do I purchase a lot of music (anywhere). But when I do purchase tunes, it's always (with the exception of one track I couldn't get there) at the iTunes store. But we're talking about very sporadic purchases: making disks for wedding receptions, birthday gifts, etc. -- usually songs I will never listen to again; but I won't 'grab-n-copy' illegally.
Most of my 40Gb of audio files come from disks (my past; I'm old, get over it) or music that I create or edit (for instance, my daughter's ballet practice tracks that arrive in a different order than they eventually end up for the final production, or include applause, etc. that must be edited out in Audacity).
Even so, with minimal purchases as a 'consumer habit', I ended up with a tab of $419 -- 'Yow' indeed. Definitely a surprising amount for a cheapskate like me.
But looking back at the list, I don't have any particular regrets. It's pretty awesome to be able to download and play a requested track AT A WEDDING that you didn't walk in with.