[Ruahrc]

I wasn't aware that the iPod 1.3 update didn't include the playlists on the fly. Dang that really sucks if only the new iPods have this feature- it's almost enough for me to try to upgrade.

The last thing I need though is another dock or cradle for a gadget of mine. I can curl up my iPod firewire cable and slip it into a desk and nobody's the wiser- but with a dock I've got this thing that sits on my desk constantly taking up room.

And my biggest complaint is with the 8hr battery life. What gives? They went down to a 630mAh battery, and still get 8 hours off of it. Imagine if they had kept the original iPod's 1200mAh (1200 right?) battery, they'd be pushing 16hours playback time. THAT, IMHO would be a big selling point, moreso than the slightly smaller/lighter form factor they got from shrinking the battery.

About the iTunes music store- can I see myself buying music in this manner? Not likely. The restrictions they impose on the "bought" files are a nuisance but admittedly fair. At least you can keep the file indefinetly and use it with your iPod as long as you wish.. the biggest complaints that I have had with other online music store venues is that you could only keep the song solong as you were paying the monthly fee. (Does this iTunes thing have a monthly fee?) As far as the quality goes, however, even if they claim 128kbps is very good, which I am sure it is, it is still not good enough. I don't think compressed audio files are worth paying money for. But from a business standpoint it is a very fair propsition. Think about it this way: the average user will not obsess or notice the audio quality of these downloaded tracks. Only us audio enthusiasts are really concerned about it and we are definately not the majority of the market. They want to cater to the majority of the market and that is what they did. No business model yet has been able to feasibly cater to all parts of the market yet and this new sevice is no exception. If you still want that "true" cd quality, then this whole thing doesn't affect you at all because CD prices aren't changing, and life goes on as usual. Now whether or not current CD prices are fair, etc. is a different matter entirely- and besides the point.

Just curious though- what happens if my hard drive crashes? Can I redownload all of my "bought" songs or must I pay for them all over again? This is why paying money for some digital files has never really made me comfortable. I like paying money for something physical that I can put my hands on- maybe I'm just a little old fashioned but it is a real issue that must be addressed.

Anyways now I'm rambling on. IMHO Apple has something pretty substantial here, however. So far it is the most promising legal music service out yet- but only time will tell if it is successful or not. As for the new iPod- some nice features other not so nice ones. If they release a good firmware update for the original iPods (read: add playlists on the fly support) I'm actually glad I already have one and prefer the old to the new- but if not it will make lots of old iPod owners very unhappy.

Ruahrc

 

[blessingx]

Agree with Austonia and Sweet Spot about actual ownership. The Digital Rights Legislation is evil. EVIL! But gotta ask are these complaints being leveled against Rhapsody, MusicNet, LiquidAudio (when it existed), etc. too. I'm just looking (and maybe compromising too much) at the competitors and it looks like Apple is at least taking users into account. If not far enough level away with the complaints. It's probably justified. We just need to level it against all software licenses etc. too. I'm a big believer in open source, but we have to play somewhat fair with the objections.

Just feels like there's something else in these complaints also. When the first iPods were annouced it was the same thing. Something else about being ignored. Something Mac users feel often. And I'm not a Mac zealot (though it may seem so by this thread). Just switched over a few months ago, but do miss some software (Foobar, running Knoppix, etc.). Be honest. Is there anything else in the complaints?

 

[blessingx]

deleted

weird double post.

 

[beastie]

hi guys,

being a windows user. i'm invested in md's already. thinking about getting a HDP for birthday. do you think it's worth it to get the new 10gig Ipod? when's the irivers thing coming out? should i wait?

i kind of like the new curvy design. though, i've never used the old version so i can't comment.

 

[skagen]

Quote:

Originally posted by austonia About the price of CD's - I don't know who's paying $18. I get mine for $5 - 13, new or used, easy enough. ... Try secondspin.com if you want them on the cheap.

I lived in NYC and I'd agree with you - there were many places to get used or "grey market" (reiewer copy, promo, etc) CD's for $12 and under. In fact I considered paying $ 16 at Tower Records or Vigin or HMV a sucker move.

However, before that I also lived in a couple small amd medium size towns in the US. That's a whole different ballgame - you've got little or no options, espeically for new stuff. If you try to buy online, shipping charges end up costing you what you save.

If you think those towns don't add up to much, understand that Sam Walton became the billionaire by simply serving those exact same people and eliminating the competition there. In other words that's a lot of people and a lot of revenue.

And its true even a Wave file on line should cost far less than the already usurious price that record companies charge for CD's. To charge that much for lossy MP3's is just pure rape. Physical distibution is a HUGE inneficienty removed - and therefore cost savings- that the record companies wish to simply pocket, rather than share even a single penny with the conusmer

Thats why pirating will continue - these guys just don't understand that they are eroding the legitimacy of their entire industry by overcharging for a product that they cannot really protect via technology. In that kind of a situation, the dumbest thing yu can do is to make it really obvious that you're out to shaft to consumer. They just pre-emptively shaft you instead and laugh!

 

[Spad]

Why is everyone obsessing so over Apple's music service? Whether or not any of us actually use it, we iPod owners (Macs now, Windows later) have gained significantly by being able to encode our own AAC tunes.

Lighten up already! Apoplexy is an ugly thing to watch.

 

[nales]

Jobs: Every song is "pristinely encoded" and some sound "better than CDs."

How are they ripped? Burst mode, surely.
"The cost will be 99 cents per song with no subscription fee."
Still using the ol' 99? I guess that "cents" is supposed to have a subconscious effect.
...
I don't like Apple either.
-
Ah well.. It's a good product.

 

[NewSc2]

off MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/906332.asp?0bl=-0


Quote:

The higher-end iPod versions include a new docking station to connect easily with PCs, as well as an audio out socket that can be used to connect the devices directly to home stereos.

What's the audio out socket? Line-out?

 

[NewSc2]

If the new iPod has a dedicated line-out, and if the back scratches a lot less easier than it used to, I think I hand down the iPod and upgrade in a few months

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by williamgoody Mac, do you really spend $18 for a CD?

I don't, but a lot of people do

That's the "regular" price for most new CDs nowadays. Scary.




Quote:

Originally posted by blessingx Agree with everything Mac says except- Quote: Apple could offer files at 256k AAC but (1) the sound wouldn't be THAT much better. It would sound MUCH better. About as great as 160/192 to 256/320 on the mp3 side.

Have you actually ripped two tracks in iTunes using AAC, one at 128k and one at 256k? I was suprised by the result

Quote:

Originally posted by austonia AAC is probably better then MP3 at 128kbs, but so what?

AAC is better than MP3 at pretty much *every* bitrate. The point is that Apple is at least using a decent quality encoder, at a decent bitrate, for the songs they sell, which is more than can be said for any of the other paid services.


Quote:

They don't give users an option to download at a higher rate. I don't care if Joe Average wouldn't bother, I want better quality than most people.

Then this service isn't for you, and you should buy the CD.



Quote:

The file size difference doesn't matter anymore with how cheap hard-disk space is, and its only getting cheaper and more plentiful.

This issue isn't one of hard drive space; it's one of bandwidth. The most expensive part of iTunes Music Service, for Apple, is the bandwidth.



Quote:

If I'm going to pay full price for a track, I want it 95% indistinguishable from CD.

You're not paying full price for the track. You're paying $.99 for (1) music; (2) convenience; and (3) instant availability. You can't compare the price of an instant download of a song from the comfort of your home to the price of a single track off a CD you could buy in the store, bring home, and rip yourself (and that's assuming that you could actually divide a CD's cost by the number of tracks to get each track's per-unit price, which makes no sense).



Quote:

Regardless, by going AAC format, Apple limits thier usefullness to iPod2 and Mac users, at least for now. Most PC users run Winamp or MS Media player which doesn't support AAC.

An intentional decision for four reasons: (1) Giving the Mac platform an advantage for a while (no other service can compare right now); (2) A closed, restricted user base to serve for a couple months to make sure the system works well under heavy load; (3) higher quality than MP3 and WMP; and (4) DRM that actually works for both the consumer and the RIAA, which means this service actually made it out the door. In a couple months (June), PC users will be able to use AAC as well.


Quote:

The restrictions, however acceptible they may seem, are restrictions nonetheless on something I am supposed to OWN. Only you don't really own it if they can tell you what you can and can't do with a simple song. Even through I would myself be rarely affected by them, its the principle, and Forget it. If they can make this popular, I fear greater restrictions on subsequent formats.

Sorry, but I'm simply amazed by this criticism. If people wouldn't STEAL music, we wouldn't have restrictions at all. Blame the idiots pirating music, don't get mad at Apple. As it is, Apple got the record companies to agree to "restrictions" that are far more lax than anyone could have imagined, and ones that only pirates could object to. It *is* the principle -- the principle that these are restrictions that only affect people who are trying to steal music, and the rest of us can enjoy our music however we want.


Quote:

Poeple don't feel bad about downloading/sharing music because they are not depriving anyone of revenue or product.

There's no other way to put it. That's just a BS justification that pirates use to feel better about what they're doing. But that debate has been hashed out over and over, and this thread isn't really a place for it.


Quote:

So, PC users get shafted on the other enhancements. Thanks Apple.

Mac users really feel for you on that one

I bet you criticize Microsoft whenever Apple users get shafted the other direction, right?

 

[MacDEF]

Originally posted by Sweet Spot
Quote:

Quote: Oh, you mean STEAL them. Now I understand. I hate this stance ...it puts honest people in an ackward position.

Honest people? Stealing music is stealing music. If you didn't buy the music, you stole it. It's really as simple as that. The rest is just justification.

(I'm not saying I don't have sympathy for the justifications. But I also have sympathy for the mother who steals money to pay for food for her kids -- but that doesn't mean she isn't stealing.)



Quote:

the iPod supports .wav files...so why wouldn't I like to have that option ? I would ! So to say that this service truely serves the public or the consumer is a lie...

The average WAV file is over 70MB. You do understand that bandwidth isn't free? How is Apple (or anyone else, for that matter) supposed to provide 70MB files to download for $.99 (or even $3-$4)? Plus the fact that WAV doesn't have any DRM built-in, which means the record companies would never allow it.


Quote:

Quote: Um, no you aren't. Entire CDs are $9.99 via the Music Store. If you're referring to the Apple music store, then ...bah. A "CD" does not consist of 128 Kbps AAC files that are proprietary my friend.

Woah, hold on... first you make one argument, then you make another. You claimed that buying an entire CD of AACs via Apple's music store was "paying MORE for lossy **** per song and album, than you would for a lossless cd in the store." I pointed out that you were wrong, since an entire album in the Apple Music Store is $9.99. To turn around and change your argument is pretty disingenuous.


Quote:

As far as most consumers not caring....I could care less about those people. Why should they be the ones to dictate what is useful or not ?

This is where you guys just don't get it. This is a business. Apple, record companies, etc. aren't doing this for charity, or to achieve sainthood by providing audiophiles with below-cost, high-quality music. They're in it to make money. Fortunately, Apple seems to at least care about the music part of it, so at least we're getting decent audio quality and extremely lax "restrictions" -- much different than every other service out there. Yet because you aren't getting WAV files for pennies, you guys are ripping it.

 

[MacDEF]

Quote:

Originally posted by Ruahrc Just curious though- what happens if my hard drive crashes? Can I redownload all of my "bought" songs or must I pay for them all over again? This is why paying money for some digital files has never really made me comfortable. I like paying money for something physical that I can put my hands on- maybe I'm just a little old fashioned but it is a real issue that must be addressed.

Yes, Apple keeps a record of everything you've purchased, and you can re-download them if you need to.

 

[RacerX]

Damnit, I'm listening to Josquin Desprez on my gorgeous IMP-400 that I received today, but can't help fantasizing about a new IPod.I want a new IPod right away!

My views on the following subjects:

1) New button layout:: looks great and functional
2) battery life::sucks that the larger battery gave way to the smaller form factor, however I'm willing to make the trade-off as I am in absolute lust with this thing. It will never happen that I will have more than 8 uninterrupted hours for listening anyway.
3)Apple Music service:: I applaud Apple for its attempt - looks like its the most user friendly legitimate digital music distribution business model ever created (at least it will be after they support Windows). On all the other aspects of this service I agree with MacDEF.

 

[blessingx]

Have you actually ripped two tracks in iTunes using AAC, one at 128k and one at 256k? I was suprised by the result.

Yeah, did several tests a few weeks ago with Ouicktime Pro 6.1/AACelerator, and did some tests today (along side ape, api and redbook files).

Listen I'm supporting the service (as several of my posts indicate). My one complaint is I wish they just pushed it one or two steps in the compression dept. 160 kps possibly and 192-224 kps almost definitely would have been keepers for me (and I encode nearly everything as ape now). In fact, 128 kps would have been fine until I found this site and bought a couple pairs of decent phones. But now if I grow to really like an album I'll probably have to buy the CD seperately. That can be expensive. It's just so close I was the quality was slightly better.

BTW, anyone know what this settings actually are? They're suppose to be VBR, but I don't know if the settings are the bottom bitrate or some middle ground.

 

[williamgoody]

I understand the whole pirating issue. But I really would have a problem with the restrictions, regardless of how fair they may seem. If I'm PAYING for something, I should be able to do with it what I please, since I OWN it. If I want to listen to it on 10 computers, I should be able to. If I want to burn 30 copies for whatever reason, I should be able to. I'm not renting a song, it's mine to own. Just because I'm not travelling to a store to buy it doesn't mean I should be punished.