Record Companies & Windows IPOD

On the contrary, Kenny! As a fellow iMS sceptic, I can see their logic... Limit the quality now, so you can demonstrate appreciably better sound in iTunes Music Store version 2.0, which will no doubt support the Super-Dooper Future Audio Codec. In my view, they're providing a quality leap over 128k MP3 right now, and saving some headroom to play with later. They can talk about recent advances in bandwidth and so on when the 2005 iMS launches with better quality.

Fair play. But given Apple's track record of dumping old product lines in a less-than-graceful way and failing to provide any kind of backwards compatibility, I'll steer clear of iMS. It could be a way to get yourself lumbered with thousands of obsolete tracks - thousands of dollars' worth of obsolete tracks.

What apple really should do is make several bitrates available for downloading instead of just 128.

Here, read this article ( http://macnet2.com/more.php?id=338_0_1_0).

Now obviously this guy is a bit peeved at his broken powerbook, but he does make a couple of good arguements.

Rob,

a little OT, but my 2.5 cents . . .

I agree with most of your points. If I'm going to pay for music downloads, it would be fantastic if we had a choice to download the version of our choice (i.e. 128 kbps MP3, 128 kbps AAC, or one loseless version). This way the customer could make the trade-off between quality and download time.

When I'm at home listening to my home stereo, I agree that I want the absolute best quality. I spent enough on this equipment where I can clearly hear the difference between MP3 and .wav.

But when I'm in my car or listening to my iPod with earbuds, I don't need max quality since neither of these environments is very conducive to high quality listening. This is why I compress my music on my iPod at 192kbps or 224kpbs. For me this works just fine, but everybody has different hearing, so this is why I think the idea of having a choice would be great.

cyder: I dont think you're quite understanding what we're saying.

The point is this:
The iPod is a great player, and probably the best portable out there. But unfortunately (or fortunately), Im guessing that the majority of people who listen to music listen to it from other sources. I know for myself, I only use the iPod when Im on the go. When Im at home, it's either my computer, or stereo system that's playing the audio.

So unless the purpose of iTMS is buying music JUST for the iPod (which would be stupid), Im not sure if that the 128kbps bitrate is enough. As a customer I'd like the highest bit rate possible (at least as close to CD quality) if Im going to purchase something.

Originally posted by clovell
This has been my concern about all online digital music purchases. 128KB was fine for my Rio 500, but it just doesn't cut it on an iPod. I'd prefer to purchase the .wav file, and convert it as I see fit (VBR, in my case).


Well I think Apple went to great lengths to devise a DRM (digital rights management) scheme for AAC that was user-friendly, while at the same time pleasing the recording industry. Although no DRM is truely secure and infalable to copying, the idea is if a large selection of music is made widely available at a *reasonable* price, people won't bother with pirating (either defeating DRM or using peer-peer services such as Kazaa, Limewire,etc). See this link (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2003/04/20030429195456.shtml) for some speculative discussions on Apple's AAC DRM.

Supporting uncompressed CD audio from an on-line music service would likely not fly with the music industry without some DRM (which could be done). Also keep in mind that in addition to requiring 10x more bandwidth and storage, the higher quality the audio, the more incentive by *some* to circumvent any anti-piracy mechanisms. How many of you would buy a CD if you could get the *same* quality, quite easily over the internet for free (i.e. pirating)? Perhaps not many here (as you can all afford ipods :)) but just look at the file sharing statistics of peer-peer networks such a Kazaa

Where are the tradeoffs?
- please the music industry with DRM schemes?
- provide convenience to the mass (users) by using lower bitrates (faster dowloads) that can be directly stored on target devices (PCs/ipods,etc) without re-encoding (a hassle)?
- offer better/best quality audio for those who would probably go buy the CD anyway (rather than pirate sub-standard mp3s)?
- what is the target market...folks who would only purchase if they could listen in an audiophile setting (i.e. home stereo) or folks who usually listen to music on PCs and portables?

If 128 kbps AAC with DRM does not provide similar audio quality as say 192 kbps VBR (i.e. LAME encoder), then perhaps 160 kbps AAC would be a better compromise. Also, what is a fair price, considering the convenience (one or two click shopping) for a less than CD quality encoding? An average CD track costs at least $1 (and you have to purchase the entire CD--most cases). I personally would prefer buying CDs for most of my music as I usually want the entire CD and enjoy the flexibility in having the best audio quality encoding. However, I might be more interested if the price was a little lower, say 50 cents a song for a *good* quality encoding (as I do 95% of my listening away from my stereo). However, being a PC based user and using many mp3 based players, I'd also like the choice of mp3 (standard Lame preset quality--but I that is just *my* personal preference).

Anyhow, I think Apple has made leaps and bounds getting the music industry aboard and offering the first wide scale music service on a pay per song basis...just wait for Microsoft and others to react.. :)