View Full Version : Buy.com sees Microsoft's 160kbps, raises...
Their downloads are now 256 kbps WMA. Is Apple even thinking of getting in on the bitrate measuring contest? 256 kbps seems almost overkill, but perhaps Apple could go in between and equal Real's 192 kbps. It's not a round number though, and it definitely wouldn't generate much buzz because it would still be in Buy's 256 kbps shadow...
1) Apple should let you download something more than once - you've been licensed the rights to it, afterall. Unlike CDs, you don't have an original just lying around you can re-encode from.
2) Speaking of which, it would be cool if Apple had the option of downloading ALE files, which could be converted to whatever format you want (for obvious reasons keeping the encryption wrapper). Audio CDs are great because you can do this, why not make iTunes great like this? It would eliminate one of the major criticisms of iTunes music in the press - that 128kbps is kinda low (I agree) and you can't choose what encoding you want.
3) iTunes sucks yada yada DRM yada yada yada.
fly pusher
2004-09-14, 07:11
Why not allow users to choose the bit rate they want ?
Stuck at home over a 56k dialup with a 4Gb iPodMini ? - then 128k is probably just what you want.
At work / school over a T1 line with 60Gb to fill and a killer Hi Fi at home to listen to ? - then lossless is the way to go.
Apple just needs to keep the original CD quality (or better) version on their servers and dynamically downsample / encode to the requested bit rate. They could cache the most popular songs at various rates to save on processor overheads - storage is cheap !
I would love a lossless option, but I don't think it's realistic to expect that from Apple. The studios might be persuaded to take their ball and go home if Apple even brought it up for serious consideration. It also means they have to increase their bandwidth several times over. Big pipes like Apple needs are metered. I don't think Apple could offer the music at 99 cents in that case...and a variable pricing format based on which bitrate you select is out of the question.
I agree with wishing you could re-download any tracks onto any authorized computer. Sign in on the iTMS, authorize the computer, download your tracks. Leave the computer and deauthorize it, and the tracks won't play. I don't see why that is so hard - they have a record of every single song you have bought. I just got a PC a couple days ago and I wanted to listen to some music on it. I don't have a hub yet to connect it to my Mac over the network, so I figured I'd just go to the iTMS and download the tracks I've bought. Nope. Apparently if your hard drive crashes or something, you're SOL.
Back on topic... 192 kbps seems like the right bitrate. Even 160 kbps. 128 is too low if you're buying the music, which then plays into the assertion that pirating stuff is not only free, but also more convenient and of better quality than buying stuff. I've had that experience with music, movies, and software. Buy it, and you are forced to use a CD when you run a game; or you're limited to 128 kbps bitrate in a format that can only be read by iTunes/Quicktime and the iPod. Pirate something, and you can play the game without the CD; or, you can make sure to download a higher bitrate MP3 file that plays on anything from a Linux server box to a cell phone.
fly pusher
2004-09-14, 08:10
...and a variable pricing format based on which bitrate you select is out of the question.
Why not ?
I've invested some serious cash in my HiFi and the sound quality of 128k MP3 or ACC files over it is such that I wouldn't buy at any price.
However, a 15-25c 'bandwidth' surcharge over the 'basic' low bit rate version would get me into that market. How much does the bandwidth for a 20Mb file really cost a big player like the iTunes store to send anyway ?
Also, if the music indurtry are confident of the DRM technology being used what does it matter to them how their 'product' is being 'consumed' ? Its not going to cost them anything and its still 'safe'.
Just my thoughts regarding what Apple has to do to get hold of part of my CD buying budget.
Yeah, why not offer lossless encoding for a bit extra to cover the bandwidth cost?
The people who can tell the difference (us) will download the ALE and the people who can't (children and old people)* can continue to buy AAC.
If Apple chose in the future to let people redownload songs, they could charge the difference when you download the ALE version.
* joke alert
Yeah, why not offer lossless encoding for a bit extra to cover the bandwidth cost?
First thing that comes to mind is it's an admission that 128 kbps AAC is not "CD quality."
And would it be integrated into the store's interface? Would you simply add another "Buy HQ" button or make it an account preference?
I'm sure there are plenty of business-end issues for Apple to consider...
Who knows, maybe Apple is planning on offering an ALE option through the iTMS and they're just making preparations for it to be just right...
If Apple chose in the future to let people redownload songs, they could charge the difference when you download the ALE version.
Real's Music Store advertises this capability but it is suspiciously broken... I'm guessing they tried it, couldn't handle it, turned it off and have quietly neglected to fix it.
fly pusher
2004-09-14, 09:27
First thing that comes to mind is it's an admission that 128 kbps AAC is not "CD quality."
I'm not sure how many people are still convinced that it is CD quality. But it sure as hell ain't....
What would be REALLY nice would be 24bit resolution at higher sampling rates.
Format independent, lossless, high definition audiophile quality music for those that care. What ever they want for those that have other priorities.
One can but dream.....
BuonRotto
2004-09-14, 09:36
So is kbps the new MHz? :D
Thing is, quality of encoding at 128 kbps can and will improve too through any number of steps between recording and publishing, even within the AAC format. Obviously, people here know that it's about PR as much as technical merit when you talk about higher bitrate encoding, but will it come to the foreground of the public's attention, using this number to measure (pardon the pun) apples to oranges like MHz to a fair degree?
I just got a PC a couple days ago and I wanted to listen to some music on it. I don't have a hub yet to connect it to my Mac over the network, so I figured I'd just go to the iTMS and download the tracks I've bought. Nope. Apparently if your hard drive crashes or something, you're SOL.
I don't see why it's Apple's responsibility to keep track of this for you. DRM in iTMS files isn't centralized, only your account info, and I would think it's best to keep the two mutually exclusive. Might be a good service in the future, but I bet it's more work than it appears, especially when you're talking about security of your financial info.
In other news MusicMatch is about to become relevant, heh.
Security of your financial information? What does that have to do with allowing you to download tracks you've already purchased?
BuonRotto
2004-09-14, 14:21
I'm just saying that it's a security issue to expand Apple's purchase database to include tracking which songs or albums you've downloaded. Not a big deal per se, just something they would want to protect, not quite the "just click a button and you're there" kind of feature upgrade.
I'm just saying that it's a security issue to expand Apple's purchase database to include tracking which songs or albums you've downloaded. Not a big deal per se, just something they would want to protect, not quite the "just click a button and you're there" kind of feature upgrade.
Actually, I just went into iTunes on this PC (first time launching iTunes on it, not a single MP3 or AAC file on it) and I was able to look up my iTMS purchase history. It says exactly how much money I spent on each order, how much each order cost me, and which songs I downloaded in each one. So they already have the information. It's just a matter of allowing you to then download those songs, instead of just looking at them.
vBulletin® v3.6.4, Copyright ©2000-2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.