Jason

Press release from Yahoo news:

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030428/sfm102_1.html

This will eventually make it to the PC world, too. As it takes off, I imagine the selection will become more diverse.

It seems to offer everything people have been wanting in a pay service. Cheap per song downloads, the ability to use it on a portable device and the ability to burn it to a CD.

Hiro11

.99/song is way too high. Depending on the album, that's more than buying the damn CD.

AAC...WTF? Why go against the standard. Now you'd have to convert the songs to MP3 to play on most any existing hardware. Needless to say, you probably couldn't do that legally with this system.

200K songs barely scratches the surface.

Mac/IPod based (even if it's coming to PC, this hurts their launch).

Requires proprietary playing software (even if ITunes is great, I'd like to be able to choose).

I smell imminent death.

Don't these guys realize that they're competing with free, endlessly extensible, standards-based versions of every song ever made? As far as raw music content, I think thet cat's out of the bag, especially with decentralized systems like newsgroups, DC++ etc. Only by offering better sound quality, unique content (videos etc) will the record companies ever make money, IMO.

This is like an alternative football league: nice idea, it will never work.

DodgingCars

From what I understand, E-music is decent. I believe they charge $10/mo for unlimited downloads.

bradolson

It may make sense for some, but I would have no interest in it. If there is an artist I wish to support, I will buy the CD. Any other songs - just download MP3. I also think they should have upped the quality from 128 to at least 256 kbps.

Kevin M. Dean

128kbit AAC sounds approximately like 192-256kbit mp3 depending on how discerning your ears are. So they are high quality tracks.

Jason

One of the arguments I heard was if there were a viable alternative to file sharing, it will make it a lot easier to prosecute people for copyright infringement.

As for the file format thing, AAC is supposed to be better compression in less space. MP3 isn't some kind of eternal format, player software and burning programs can be upgraded, MP3 files can be reformatted to AAC, and why should a legitimate pay service use the same format that was set by it's competition?

Michael T Hudson

I just do not see people paying for songs they can get for free.

Ralph Wiggum

$0.99/song is absurd.

CDs cost $14-$15 at retail because of the distribution costs and packaging. This service has a fraction of the distribution overhead, no packaging, is at a lower quality and manages to cost more!

To hell with this.

hmurchison

You have the option to purchase the whole Album in many cases at a reduced rate.

You simply Burn a CD or wait for the players out there to support AAC. Personally I'd like to get %30 of my storage back. I'm not that much of a fan of MP3

No. It's iTunes based. Apple will eventually support PC. Either they will port iTunes to PC or they will support PC's through Musicmatch. iPods just make it that much easier to sync.

Well what is it ...is MP3 "Standard" or "Proprietary" You've jumped to conclusions. iTunes is free on Macs and I am pretty sure Apple will offer something similar for PC's upon launch. Choice is nice but all you have to do is download the track and then you can play it back with whatever you have that supports AAC.

LOL. You've been WAY off the mark in almost every facet of this software. Developing opinions without the facts is folly. Kazzaa etc are NOT free. Your azz can put in jail over downloading from these sites. Apple will offer fast downloads. Pristine files(no bunk or looped files) and the ability to keep your integrity. If you enjoy music you should reward the Artist because if they don't sell then another album is not coming.

Ummmm how about Jailtime...Felony...Imprisonment. P2P will have it's place but Decentralized Filesharing is not as good as Centralized. I'm hearing reports that you can Downloads full Albums very quickly. Apples Servers are top notch.

contrast that with Kazaa which loads spyware on your machine...and which has uneven download speeds and plenty of looped or garbage files purposely placed online by Poisoners.

As a matter of fact if I was the studios I'd flood P2P with so much garbage it's take a miracle to find something decent. Rembember because it's Decentralized there's no management and users are generally too lazy to remove bad files from their lists.

hmurchison

Good God Man don't get your panties all in a twist. Say you only want 1 song from an album? Do you give a rats azz whether the CD cost money to package and distribute? Hell no..you just want to get that song.

There's the magic. If you want the whole album...buy it. The studios want that..but if you only want a few songs...hell you're only out of pocket $3. That's gas to the freakin CD store. Hell the tax alone in some States on a CD purchase would buy you a song.

Ralph Wiggum

Cute.

I do actually. I understand the economics of the recording industry and refuse to overpay for services on general principle.

It's extremely rare that I want just one song from an album anyways.

If anybody offered me the selection Napster had in its heyday (everything) at CD quality from fast servers, I'd gladly pay upwards of $15/month for unlimited downloads and ownership of the songs (read: no "checking out" BS or burning restrictions).

This service is half-assed at best.

Michael T Hudson

Ummmm how about Jailtime...Felony...Imprisonment. P2P will have it's place but Decentralized Filesharing is not as good as Centralized. I'm hearing reports that you can Downloads full Albums very quickly. Apples Servers are top notch.

contrast that with Kazaa which loads spyware on your machine...and which has uneven download speeds and plenty of looped or garbage files purposely placed online by Poisoners.

As a matter of fact if I was the studios I'd flood P2P with so much garbage it's take a miracle to find something decent. Rembember because it's Decentralized there's no management and users are generally too lazy to remove bad files from their lists. [/B][/



QUOTE]


I use Kazaa light which has no spyware. And I do not see the Government putting everyone in jail that shares files. It is kind of like the stealing cable thing. Have you ever heard of anyone going to jail for it?

Giantrobo

Be patient...BUY USED CD's.

This way you can keep Hot Little Music store Chicks employed and in the public eye.

Hiro11

You've set my Troll meter to hum, but here goes anyway.

Still doesn't make sense. See Ralph Wiggum's comment. Reduced overhead should mean reduced prices. Look at Dichord Record fer crissake. 9.99 a disc using existing distribution channels. That's the way it should be. It should cost even less to DL. About $.10/song sound right to me.



MP3 does sound like crap, but it's what everyone uses. I can't think of an existing portable MP3 player that can play AAC (watch someone find one). The type of people who would use this system would have to either buy new hardware as it becomes available or wait for firmware updates... sounds like a hurdle to me.



No, read the article, it's very specific that it only works on Macs and IPods

Key word: eventually. Don't hold your breath.



WTF are you talking about. This makes no sense. The system requires ITunes, any requirement is a limitation. That's my point.

Let me summarize: "you're jumping to conclusions" (proceeds to jump to several conclusions). And I go back to the portable player issue.



Thank you.

Could have fooled me and roughly 15 million other people.
Kazaa is not a "site", and I was talking about newsgroups and Direct Connect. It's like an arms race, every time the RIAA comes out with new standards, some guy in his mom's basement develops a way around. As I said, the cat's out of the bag

This is the sound of someone buying Lars' crock of ****. The money goes to the record companies. Very few musicians get anything in royalties because they only get a portion of what is left after the record companies recoup all costs. The whole system sucks. Let's tear it down.

hmurchison

Well I just spent 20 freaking minutes once again hunting down spyware and deleting it.

It's all good because i'm comfortable rooting around in the registry but Ma and Pops aren't going to do that.

Give the service a chance people...that's all I ask. Free is hard to pass up but we're stealing peoples livelyhood. Sure I download but I'm trying to find a way to compensate the artists who bring me such joy fairly without going bankrupt (financially and morally) in the process.

GreenMonkey

I know I'm not paying 99 cents a pop for anything I can't place into my hand. If I wanted a burnt CD I could copy a friend's CD. I'm sure not paying 99 cents (from $10-20) for a burnt CD, or just the compressed audio files. I will stick with real CDs, when there is one good enough to buy. Good idea, but thanks, no. Greedy music companies at work again.

Alyoshka

I actually think it sounds really decent:

99 cents/song or $10 for an entire album. Good.
You can use it on up to three different computers at one time. Good.
You can use them on unlimited ipods. Good
You can burn up to 10 identical playlists. Very good.

I think Steve Jobs has a hit with this. I'd rather download a song, and pay for it, then mess around with hunting down a cd at the store. Sorry, but I've got plenty of other things to do with my time. If I can just download music to my IPOD I'll be happy. 99 cents for a lifetime song is nothing.

Jason

You can burn the tracks an unlimited number of times, but only 10 times with the same playlist. I think that's fair. If you're burning 100 of the same thing, you're a pirate, matey!

It's not for everybody (name one single thing that is), but it has a chance. It's the return of the 45rpm single if they play their cards right.

Market it like this: Popular TV show features new song by popular artist in background. Commercial comes on to tell you it's ready to download for 99 cents right now. Tens of thousands of people download track. Label, artist, and Apple make money, people get instant gratification. Everybody's happy.

I was browsing through the available tracks, and it's a decent selection, certainly better than either record club, although a lot of catalog acts are incomplete, I imagine they will fill in the gaps quickly.

Anyhow, just browsing through, I noticed they had the album released by Aldo Nova back in the early 80's. "Fantasy" was a on-and-off staple of the local rock station for years around here, and I always liked it. I could really care less about the rest of the album, but 99 cents for the one song I know I like is a no brainer.

big whoppa

When the music store launched, traffic was so high no one could purchase anything. This might work. 99 cents for a good quality track that can be reburned isn't bad.

PC version is expected later in the year. Possible MusicMatch interface is what I'm hearing.

GreenMonkey

The same price (or more, if it has more than 10 tracks, which most do) for a downloaded, compressed song that you can only do certain things with. When someone realizes that they can't burn it on a greatest hits CD again because they've hit their limit, and have to pay for the same song again, they'll stop using it.

Jason

Or they'll change the order of two songs, and be good to go again. Plus, many of the albums are priced cheaper than 99 cents a track.

This service mostly prohibits things you shouldn't be doing anyhow.

GreenMonkey

I thought for a little while, and I guess that 99 cents is fair, IF that is a ceiling price, and some other songs are cheaper. However, none of these burning restrictions sound good to me. "shouldn't be doing anyhow"? Sounds like the RIAA outlook to me. A lot of people agree with something else - it's called fair use.

Pull the burning restrictions and it seems like a good idea. And as far as "hunting down a CD" ? It must be a particular kind of music interest to have to hunt them down. It's not like grabbing a CD at the store is all that difficult. My local Meijer store carries them 24-7-364. And I live in a pretty rural area.

Alyoshka

Well, I do know that if you've been watching how the RIAA and record companies have been handling online music you would be excited about this. None of the record companies would have allowed these loose restrictions a year ago.

Steve Jobs has really opened up the door. Hopefully in the future a few of these tighter restrictions will be lifted. For the present, however, I still think that it's not such a bad deal.

If you're burning a playlist to cd then you just need a copy or two. Allowing you to burn 10 means that you can give a few copies to friends. I think that comports with what most people consider "fair use."

smw

regarding mp3: It's an old and pretty outdated format. In terms of non proprietary formats the current best bets are Ogg for lossy and Ape for lossless either way mp3 is obsolete

RoyalTea

could you imagine how much money the recording industry could have made if they teamed up with napster five years ago?