Grex Music3 Conference

Item 145: Apple presents iTunes - online music store

Entered by sj2 on Tue Apr 29 05:52:23 2003:

Hear hear ... Apple unveils a music store.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104-998590.html

Singles are 99cents for a download. Whats the catch?? The music format 
is AAC that can only be played on iPODs and MACs!!! Can you convert it 
to MP3? Don't know but I am just waiting for someone to come-up with an 
AAC to MP3 converter and then Apple (RIAA+others) suing people left, 
right and centre for converting AACs to MP3s. Let the fun begin!!
81 responses total.

#1 of 81 by sj2 on Tue Apr 29 05:57:57 2003:

Though Apple's site says "And iPod is the only portable digital music 
player that supports the AAC format (Mac-only), which features CD-
quality audio in smaller file sizes than MP3, so that even more songs 
fit on your iPod", googling for AAC reveals that it is supported by 
other vendors such as Nokia too. Heh, Did Apple derive its own 
propreitary AAC format??



#2 of 81 by pvn on Tue Apr 29 10:23:21 2003:

Hmm.  I'm actually considering a 2% investment in Apple precisely
because of this. (Thats 1/5th of the 10% of my "equity" investment
portion of my portfolio)
Seems to me the way Apple have it structured they cannot lose even if it
is a total and complete failure (as I suspect it will be) as they get
their money up front (like some stock brokers who are smart enough not
to play the market themselves).  Also I seriously doubt Apple will be
involved in any suits over format conversions (I think they will not be
so stupid and can't speak for the demonstrated stupidity of RIAA et al
as that is obvious, and they probably will).  Here is the problem. 
Those of us with credit cards so that we can buy stuff over the Internet
have probably already long since bought retail CDs of what we consider
music and have probably burned copies for our own everyday use and
passed copies off to our contemporaries.  The probable vast majority of
the problem the RIAA et al see and claim such huge losses from wouldn't
know noise from music, have damaged hearing, and don't have access to
their parents credit cards in order to buy legit CDs in the first place
so won't have any way to purchase legit copies over the Internet even if
it is only ninety-nine cents per cut or even if it was a penny per. 
Thus when the converted noise appears on the free networks at reduced
fidelity they won't even notice and it will be business as usual.





#3 of 81 by mynxcat on Tue Apr 29 13:40:36 2003:

This response has been erased.



#4 of 81 by omni on Tue Apr 29 13:56:46 2003:

  Hmm, what goes around comes around, eh?

  I remember that the vinyl singles of my youth (dont ask how OLD I am)
used to cost $1 at the record store. Of course, you had to actually GO there
and buy it, instead of downloading it. I'll tell you, this generation has it
so darned easy.


#5 of 81 by gull on Tue Apr 29 14:30:40 2003:

I think there is a niche for something like this.  The songs I've
downloaded have always been when I just wanted one song.  I've never
downloaded a whole album, except in one or two cases where the album was
out of print.  If I want the whole album, I buy the CD.  I just don't
like buying a whole CD to get one song I like.


#6 of 81 by anderyn on Tue Apr 29 16:57:15 2003:

It's a decent idea. I just wish it was for non-Mac folks too. 


#7 of 81 by jaklumen on Wed Apr 30 01:01:35 2003:

I read the AP article, and I seem to remember reading that a Windows 
site would be coming out sometime soon.


#8 of 81 by ea on Wed Apr 30 21:44:16 2003:

Friends of mine that are mac addicts report that there will be a version 
of iTunes available on a PC platform by the end of the year, and that it 
will support the new "buy on demand" music system.


#9 of 81 by jazz on Thu May 1 05:31:17 2003:

        I've yet to see anyone make money on the business model of selling
something that's currently free but is being strongarmed legally.


#10 of 81 by pvn on Thu May 1 08:50:37 2003:

Not if you are the vendor.  But in this case Apple may have a chance as
they are more like a stock broker.  They don't actually own the product
they are facilitating the purchase of.  I do hope they got money up
front from the music industry though.


#11 of 81 by krj on Thu May 1 18:44:24 2003:

   (((  Summer Agora #125 linked as Music #145  )))


#12 of 81 by orinoco on Thu May 1 19:34:55 2003:

Back before the web was universal, people made money selling shareware
compilations.  The idea seemed to be that going and getting each piece of
software was just annoying enough that people would be willing to pay a few
bucks to get them all at once on a disk.  Given how flaky and unreliable the
file sharing services I've tried have been, I might be willing to pay to
download a good clean copy of a song from a reliable source.  Similar idea,
I guess -- you're paying for convenience, not for the product itself.


#13 of 81 by pvn on Fri May 2 04:59:20 2003:

So there is hope yet, the convenience factor (and not having to spend
time downloading a file only to listen to madonna saying "what the f*ck
do you think you are doing"...(she's bright, that one))


#14 of 81 by gull on Fri May 2 14:03:22 2003:

I don't think I'd ever use the Apple service because of the DRM stuff
that's tacked on.  If I can't burn a music file to a CD or load it on my
MP3 player, it's not much good to me.


#15 of 81 by mynxcat on Fri May 2 14:04:56 2003:

This response has been erased.



#16 of 81 by mcnally on Fri May 2 18:28:28 2003:

  re #14: According to all the news stories I've read on the iTunes store,
  you *can* burn the downloads to audio CD, with the only mentioned 
  restriction being that you cannot burn more than ten copies of the same
  playlist.


#17 of 81 by krj on Fri May 2 19:03:33 2003:

... which is an odd restriction, since one could burn one copy
of the CD from the playlist and then make copies from that...


#18 of 81 by mcnally on Fri May 2 23:44:21 2003:

  My guess is that it's a token concession to DRM but that Apple knew that
  anything more restrictive would never fly with consumers..


#19 of 81 by sj2 on Sat May 3 15:56:46 2003:

When I started buying western music about ten years back, a cassette 
used to cost Rs.40 or approx 80 cents. Yesterday, when I again bought a 
few, it cost me almost $5 each. Approximately, a whopping 600% jump!!!! 
What else has gone up by 600% in the last ten years?? Certainly not the 
quality of music. IMHO, at 99cents a song, it is still a rip-off.

Maybe a group of artists will start to sell music online at lower 
rates?? 


#20 of 81 by mvpel on Sun May 4 18:14:33 2003:

Caren and I just got an iPod, and it's a brilliant little piece of technology.
It frankly boggles my mind having gone from a PET computer with 16,384
precious bytes of memory back in fifth grade up to a compact little music
machine that fits in the palm of your hand with room for 16,106,127,360 bytes
of data.

We signed up for the service yesterday, and downloaded a dozen songs by half
a dozen different artists to replace a batch of six CDs that were lost when
we were travelling.  Simply brilliant - spending $12 and getting exactly what
we wanted instead of nearly $100 on replacement CDs.

If the RIAA had spent their money on innovation instead of lawyers and
software sabotage, they'd have come out with this service three years ago.


#21 of 81 by mary on Mon May 5 12:45:42 2003:

I haven't owned anything from the Beetles since the days
of vinyl.  But today I'm going to make my own "Best of"
album at 99c a song.

I don't expect I'll use the service a whole lot but,
if it works, it will be nice to have available.


#22 of 81 by mynxcat on Mon May 5 14:04:58 2003:

This response has been erased.



#23 of 81 by sj2 on Tue May 6 06:26:47 2003:

Sorry, I am talking about here in Oman. A CD costs RO 5.500 and a 
cassette costs RO 1.800

An Omani Rial is about $2.58. Thats $4.64

In India, the last I bought cassettes they were Rs125-Rs140. But that 
was about two years back. Sony has this special Indian edition CDs that 
cost only Rs250, thats about $5. Rest cost Rs.650, that is about $13.

Comparitively, books are sold at 1/5th to 1/10th the price in India 
than what they are sold for in the US. Special asian or Indian edition 
books.


#24 of 81 by mynxcat on Tue May 6 14:43:59 2003:

This response has been erased.



#25 of 81 by anderyn on Tue May 6 17:17:04 2003:

Why are books/cds/etc. more cheap in India? That seems odd to me. 


#26 of 81 by mynxcat on Tue May 6 18:00:08 2003:

This response has been erased.



#27 of 81 by sj2 on Wed May 7 07:15:04 2003:

I don't think it has anything to do with manufacturing costs or 
royalties. Its just plain marketing. If you sold a technical text book 
for $20 in India almost none of the students would buy it. It would end 
up getting photcopied and pirated. Now if you sold it for say $2-$4, 
all students will buy a copy (as they do). 

You have to remember that in volumes the Indian market for technical 
text books must be bigger than that of US+UK+other-English-speaking-
countries. So its a BIG market and something that the publishers can't 
simply ignore. With more than 250 universities, 1,500 research 
institutions and 10,428 higher-education institutes, India churns out 
200,000 engineering graduates and another 300,000 technically trained 
graduates every year.

The local authors have local publishers and can sell a book at $2-$4, 
so to compete with them the foreign publishers must sell at similar 
prices. Low volume books are imported and sell at US prices for example 
medical textbooks. Heh, so lots of medical students buy pirated books.

I wish the music publisher's take a hint from the book publishers and 
do more like what Sony is doing.


#28 of 81 by gull on Wed May 7 13:57:31 2003:

It's simple economics.  If the population makes less money, you have to
price your goods lower if you want to sell them.

For a simple, local example, compare the cost of gas at the Meijer on
Ann Arbor-Saline Road to the cost of gas at the one on Carpenter. ;) 
Last I checked it was seven cents cheaper per gallon on Carpenter Road.


#29 of 81 by keesan on Wed May 7 14:12:31 2003:

So if they sell as tape for $5, everyone will make copies for their friends.
If they sold it cheaper, people might buy originals.


#30 of 81 by mynxcat on Wed May 7 15:03:30 2003:

This response has been erased.



#31 of 81 by sj2 on Wed May 7 15:57:48 2003:

Yeah. But you can visit India and buy those books and read them in the 
US. My sis bought Rs. 50K of books on her first visit to India after 
she went to study in the US. Thats ... ummm ... $1000. But I guess the 
US value of those books would be anywhere between US $5k-$10k.


#32 of 81 by mynxcat on Wed May 7 16:00:47 2003:

This response has been erased.



#33 of 81 by krj on Wed May 7 17:32:43 2003:

The economic concept here is called "market segmentation," IIRC.
It also happens on a geographic basis with medical drugs; on a 
"class" basis, it is used by the airline industry so they can 
charge thousands of dollars for a business traveller, but only 
hundreds for vacationers.


#34 of 81 by gull on Wed May 7 20:56:57 2003:

Part of that is because vacationers act in ways that help the airlines. For
example, vacationers generally buy tickets a month or two in advance, which
lets the airline plan ahead.  Business travellers are always buying at the
last minute and rescheduling their flights, which makes it harder for the
airlines to ensure the planes will be full.


#35 of 81 by slynne on Wed May 7 21:26:44 2003:

If that were the only consideration gull, the airlines would simply 
give a big discount for advance purchases. But they also have things 
like cheaper fares if you stay overnight saturday which is totally 
designed to offer cheaper fares to vacationers. 

An airline might offer a route between city A and city B because 
typically they can fill 75% of the plane with business travelers who 
are willing to pay say $400 for the flight. Vacationers arent so 
willing to spend the $400 because they have other options (they can 
spend their vacation at home for instance). The airlines use the "sat 
stay" requirement to offer the vacationers seats at $200 or even $100. 


#36 of 81 by keesan on Thu May 8 00:30:10 2003:

Amtrak offers cheaper fares if you buy in advance.


#37 of 81 by mynxcat on Thu May 8 02:36:52 2003:

This response has been erased.



#38 of 81 by slynne on Thu May 8 13:31:18 2003:

Yes they do. I have to wonder how many people take Amtrak for business 
except for on the East Coast. 


#39 of 81 by gull on Thu May 8 13:33:53 2003:

Last time I looked into taking Amtrak, it was cheaper to fly.


#40 of 81 by slynne on Thu May 8 13:40:46 2003:

Opps. My #38 was a reply to #36. I agree with Sapna that not everyone 
wants to spend days and days getting to their destination. 

I have found that Amtrak is cheaper and more convenient than flying 
when one is going on a short trip. For example, Ann Arbor to Chicago.
But even New York to Washington DC seems easier and cheaper too at 
least the last time I checked. Consider also that the train usually 
puts someone right downtown without the hassles of the airport. 

Still, I imagine that Amtrak probably has a smaller percentage of 
business travellers than the airlines. Even so, they probably could 
learn a thing or two from the airlines about ticket pricing. I think 
they are starting to do that. When I first started taking Amtrak, they 
pretty much had the same fares for everyone but now they have things 
like the "rail sale" on the website. 


#41 of 81 by gull on Thu May 8 14:05:07 2003:

The trip that was cheaper by plane was Grand Rapids, MI to Seattle, WA.
 But supposedly the long transcontinental runs are the ones Amtrak has
trouble making a profit on, so it makes sense that they'd be more expensive.


#42 of 81 by mynxcat on Thu May 8 15:45:01 2003:

This response has been erased.



#43 of 81 by slynne on Thu May 8 15:54:30 2003:

Yeah. It takes three days and two nights to get to the west coast from 
here via train. That is a little long for business travel. However, it 
is perfect for folks who have a lot of time. FWIW, it is a great 
experience. I have gone to California on the train twice. The views are 
awesome. The people on the train are generally pretty neat. If you get 
a sleeper car (very expensive) it is *really* nice but coach isnt too 
bad. 





#44 of 81 by keesan on Thu May 8 18:14:53 2003:

They drag around a special car in which you can sit and look straight out the
window (instead of sideways) and also some dining-type cars where they sell
expensive potato chips and soda that they just took onboard from the
supermarket at the previous stop.  (On the transcontinental run).
Unlike European trains, you cannot lie down in the train cheaply, you have
to pay for a private compartment and the use of a shower.  In Europe a
six-person compartment can make up into a six-bunk compartment where you can
all lie down for the night at reasonable cost.  One reason not to travel long
distances on American trains.


#45 of 81 by krj on Thu May 8 19:15:03 2003:

Do people listen to songs from the Apple music store on their iPods on 
these train trips?


#46 of 81 by mcnally on Thu May 8 19:26:23 2003:

  Well, the Apple store didn't exist at the time, but I spent quite a bit
  of the time listening to my iPod on my Seattle to Oakland Amtrak trip this
  March. 

  I doubt I'll ever choose to take a long-distance Amtrak trip again.  
  Thanks to a special fare sale they were having, I managed to travel for
  about $30 less than if I had booked my travel by air, but it took about
  24 hours to reach my destination and while I enjoyed watching the scenery
  on the first part of the trip, scenery wasn't much use to me after it got
  dark.

  The rail system does have some great right-of-ways towards the south end
  of the Puget Sound, running right along the water in some places.  Very
  pretty, but you could get the same views on a much more enjoyable trip
  by just taking the segment between Seattle and Portland.


#47 of 81 by tod on Thu May 8 19:30:16 2003:

This response has been erased.



#48 of 81 by keesan on Thu May 8 19:37:12 2003:

The views from the train were much more interesting than those from the road,
also when we are biking we tend to keep our eyes on the gravel surface.
If the trains were full they would be cheaper than the planes.


#49 of 81 by mcnally on Thu May 8 19:41:17 2003:

  re #47:  could you?  actively-used rail right-of-ways are generally
  off-limits for bicyclists and I don't recall seeing any parallel bike-
  or multi-use-paths..


#50 of 81 by anderyn on Thu May 8 21:08:30 2003:

I have only ever been on one short train trip and I did listen to my cassette
player while on it. Nowadays, I'd take my mini-disc player. (I don't know if
I will ever have an i-Pod, though it sounds cool.)


#51 of 81 by tod on Thu May 8 21:55:33 2003:

This response has been erased.



#52 of 81 by mcnally on Fri May 9 00:32:45 2003:

  There are some excellent reasons why you can't always get the same views
  from a bicycle that are available from the train.  The first is the 
  distance you ride above the ground on a train -- it makes a big difference.
  The second, and more crucial, is that train tracks, especially in the west,
  often run through some otherwise pretty inaccessible areas..


#53 of 81 by tod on Fri May 9 00:33:48 2003:

This response has been erased.



#54 of 81 by mcnally on Fri May 9 00:35:31 2003:

  True.  You can also turn!


#55 of 81 by tod on Fri May 9 04:24:50 2003:

This response has been erased.



#56 of 81 by sj2 on Fri May 9 13:00:55 2003:

And long bicycle rides are tough on the boys!! :-))


#57 of 81 by gull on Fri May 9 13:36:23 2003:

I was told once that the Pennsylvania Turnpike used to be a railroad
right-of-way, and that's why there are so many tunnels.  Any truth to
that?  I'm a bit skeptical.


#58 of 81 by jazz on Fri May 9 13:53:03 2003:

        I'd venture that it's because the state is in the Appalacians.  Occam's
razor.


#59 of 81 by krj on Fri May 9 17:48:50 2003:

resp:57 is true.   The original section of the Pennsylvania Turnpike, 
from Irwin to Carlisle across the mountains (roughly from Harrisburg
to Pittsburgh) used the route of a planned Southern Pennsylvania railroad 
which was engineered and partly constructed, but never brought to 
service.  The planned railroad was built to threaten the established
northern Pennsylvania rail route, as part of a war between robber barons
in the Gilded Age of the 1890's, if I remember correctly.  
The robber barons reached a financial settlement between themselves 
and the southern rail project was abandoned & left fallow until after 
World War II, when someone realized it would make a fabulous highway
through difficult terrain.

Source: PA Turnpike literature, hopefully remembered correctly.
I bet there's an official Turnpike website.

Do people listen to their iPods while driving on the Pennsylvania Turnpike?


#60 of 81 by jaklumen on Fri May 9 22:09:28 2003:

<jaklumen smiles bemusedly as krj tries again and again to return 
discussion to the original topic>


#61 of 81 by ea on Fri May 9 22:32:28 2003:

re #59 - my friends who own iPods carry them everywhere, so I would 
assume that if they were on the Pennsylvania Turnpike, they would listen 
to their iPods ... (possibly through a cassette adapter plugged into 
their car's cassette player, or one of those FM modulators for cars 
without a cassette player)


#62 of 81 by dbratman on Sat May 10 17:09:31 2003:

what's an iPod and why is is sPelled in that pEculiar wAy?


#63 of 81 by carson on Sat May 10 17:53:54 2003:

(I bet it's spelled that way for the same reason that internet auction site
calls itself eBay.)


#64 of 81 by other on Sat May 10 18:11:27 2003:

iT's bEcause oF tHe iNfluence tHat mArketing hAs oN tHe wAy wE uSe oUr 
lAnguage.  dOntcha jUst lOve iT?


#65 of 81 by mcnally on Sat May 10 21:10:35 2003:

  re #62:  An iPod is a portable personal music player sold by Apple.
  It can store hundreds of albums' worth of songs in MP3 or other computer
  music formats all in a package about the size and weight of a deck of
  cards that fits easily in your pocket.. ( http://www.apple.com/ipod/ )

  If you like music and electronic gadgets it's a fantastic combination of
  the two..


#66 of 81 by rcurl on Sat May 10 22:10:40 2003:

Didn't the i-naming get started with the Apple iMac computer? They've just
gotten carried away. I wonder if they copyrighted "i-".



#67 of 81 by mcnally on Sat May 10 22:53:27 2003:

  Yes, it started with the iMac.  Now the linguistically sensitive can iGag
  at iMac, iPod, iTunes, iCal, iMovie, iSync, iPhoto, iEtc..


#68 of 81 by scott on Sat May 10 23:14:24 2003:

...in fact, I'm posting this from my iBook.


#69 of 81 by remmers on Sun May 11 11:58:14 2003:

If I manufacture a competing music player, can I call it an rPod?
Or would Apple come after me for trademark infringement?


#70 of 81 by jazz on Sun May 11 14:00:21 2003:

        NyQuil started it anyways.  "NyQuil, we love you, you giant f*n Q!"


#71 of 81 by gull on Mon May 12 13:28:12 2003:

Re #59: Huh.  Those are some pretty steep grades for a railroad.

Re #67: iLamp (my friend's nickname for the new iMac model)


#72 of 81 by jaklumen on Mon May 12 20:20:47 2003:

The media still seems to be very optimistic about iTunes, at least 
from the last AP release I read.  But the one criticism I remember 
hearing was that iTunes still lacks the selection of the major P2P 
servers (Kazaa, Grokster).


#73 of 81 by gull on Tue May 13 12:56:47 2003:

That's kind of crippled all the for-pay download services.  The record
labels are sort of dipping their toes in, providing only a tiny subset
of their catalogs, when they really need to jump in with both feet.


#74 of 81 by dbratman on Wed May 14 15:35:46 2003:

Yes: a brick-and-mortar store with only a small selection isn't going 
to do well either, unless it's the only game in town.


#75 of 81 by tpryan on Fri May 16 07:15:38 2003:

re 70:  I thought TouchTone and PhoneCenter where amoung the first
uses of an additional CapitalLetter in a word.


#76 of 81 by gull on Sat May 17 00:20:27 2003:

The term I heard for that, when it was popular during the 80s, was
"intercapping".  Some companies that used to have intercapped names have
dropped that feature.  MicroSoft, for example.  I still tend to use
intercapped names for variables when I'm programming.  In programming
books I've seen it referred to as "camel notation", presumably because
the name has a "hump" in the middle.


#77 of 81 by pvn on Sun May 18 09:01:15 2003:

iCommune was released yesterday.  It allows iTunes users to share all
the music they payed a buck each cut for with each other over the
Internet.  I guess APPLE is liable for DMCA violation for releasing
OS-X?  Thank Bill there wasn't a WinDoze version of iTunes otherwise
shot would have really hit the pan.

http://icommune.sourceforge.net/


#78 of 81 by dbratman on Sun May 18 23:18:18 2003:

resp:63 - I'm not sure if that Internet auction site does call 
itself "eBay".  Other people call it that, but its own logo is all 
small letters: "ebay".


#79 of 81 by oval on Wed May 21 15:03:38 2003:

i keep finding links to osX utils etc that allow one to play .ogg files. only
all the links are no longer there. can anyone point me to a link or email me
the component? thanks.



#80 of 81 by mcnally on Sat Mar 27 01:30:37 2004:

  Recently krj was kind enough to send me some iTunes codes that he'd 
  won in Pepsi's iTunes give-away promotion.  Although I've owned an
  iPod for almost two years, redeeming the codes was my first experience
  with purchasing music from an on-line download service.

  All of the descriptions I've heard seem to say that Apple's iTunes
  Music Store has the best interface out there and among the biggest
  selections.  Neither was awful but if this is really the best service
  that's available so far the industry still has a long way to go. 
  The user experience, in particular, could stand some really obvious 
  improvements (e.g. -- when you're listening to a preview sound clip
  it shouldn't stop abruptly if you continue browsing.)

  When Ken gave me his iTunes codes I thought "Cool, but this is going
  to wind up costing me at least 10 bucks in extra stuff I find and
  want to download," but in the end it was a bit of a struggle to find
  8 tunes I was eager to download.  I was also a bit put out by the
  intimidating service agreement and the sign-up process, though I
  eventually figured out how to use the free downloads without having
  to provide Apple with my credit card number.

  All in all it was an enlightening experience and I used the opportunity
  to download a bunch of singles off of albums I don't care to invest in.
  For that, if for no other purpose, it's nice to have iTunes and similar
  services, though I was thwarted by the unavailability of several
  selections before I found enough to fill my order.

  In the end, though it was more work to find them than I thought it
  would be, I wound up with a group of songs I'm pretty sure I'll
  enjoy (I'm listening to one of them right now (Jackson Browne's 
  original version of "These Days", which I've been wanting to hear
  ever since I discovered the Golden Palominos' lovely cover version.)
  Thanks, Ken!


#81 of 81 by mcnally on Wed Apr 14 08:02:41 2004:

  Chris Goosman was also kind enough to send me an iTunes code from the
  Pepsi promotion, too..

  If anyone is holding on to codes with the intent of using them eventually,
  make sure you do something with them before April 30th, as they'll expire
  at that time..


There are no more items selected.

You have several choices: