Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Apple to Launch Music Service?

michael posted more than 11 years ago | from the pay-to-play dept.

Music 877

discstickers writes "The San Jose Mercury News is running an article about an Apple music service that might be ready to launch next month. $.99 a song with the ability to burn to CD doesn't sound too bad."

cancel ×

877 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

FP for the CLIT (-1)

Proctal Relapse (467579) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434142)

stay strong. Editors = gay as usual

Re:FP for the CLIT -- RIGHT!!! (-1)

Big_Ass_Spork (446856) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434287)

IAWTP! Good work, my compadre. It does my heart good to see the CLIT representin'

At first glance... (4, Interesting)

I'm a racist. (631537) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434145)

This seems to be the business model /.ers have been yelling at the RIAA to adopt. Let's see if it's actually viable...

Re:At first glance... (5, Interesting)

JHromadka (88188) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434211)

This seems to be the business model /.ers have been yelling at the RIAA to adopt. Let's see if it's actually viable...

I sure hope so. I buy pretty much 1-2 CDs a year now -- not because I pirate the songs, it's because I don't want to spend $15 on 2 songs. Being able to only buy the stuff I like could also allow independent labels to get some of the action. It would be great if an artist without a label could also hook into this service, so 5 million OS X users could have a shot at your song instead of the 30 people that go to the local bar.

New slogan: Listen different. :)

Re:At first glance... (5, Insightful)

OMEGA Power (651936) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434331)

It is a viable model but the pricing is still too high. $0.99/track equal $15-20/album when CDs can often be found for $10-12 or even less. I would say services like this will be successful when prices reach $0.25-0.50/song assuming they have a good catalog, high quality files (with minimal, if any, DRM) and the service works well.

fp? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434146)

fp in my own article? booyah!

fpfpfpf (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434147)

FP

Yes. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434148)

I am a moose. Thank you for asking.

Well (1, Flamebait)

unterderbrucke (628741) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434154)

I have a service called Kazaa that costs 0 cents a song and lets you burn a CD. I like that better.

Re:Well (0, Flamebait)

lunartik (94926) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434187)

Seeing how no P2P services work well on Macs (why is that, anyway?) $.99 a song beats using the shit software that is available, really.

Re:Well (2, Insightful)

ElGuapoGolf (600734) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434272)

Xnap should, it's based on the opennap protocol, and written in java.

For that matter, there should be more than a few java based gnutella clients. Those should work too.

Re:Well (0)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434283)

Mere words cannot describe how ignorant of a comment this is.

Limewire, Hotline and an almost endless variety of Gnutella clients all run fine on the Mac, my favorite being Acquisition.

Idiot.

Re:Well (5, Insightful)

fobside (140397) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434188)

That's true. I think a lot of people are downloading for free, because they have the excuse that there isn't a way to get just the songs they want on a CD. Now that there is an option to get CDs for $15, but with 15 songs you DO want on it. It's time to see who is making excuses for their piracy and who really just doesn't like the system.

Re:Well (2, Insightful)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434346)

>>Now that there is an option to get CDs for $15, but with 15 songs you DO want on it.

Says who? I can guarantee I wont find 15 songs I want on their site. It'll be all mainstream top 40 type of stuff that I dont buy (its on the radio ad nauseum, why would I?)

I dont use P2P, but I do download some mp3s once in awhile, and it's usually from a friend or someone I know who has similar tastes sending me obscure old punk or metal that is hard to find in stores, and impossible on services like this.

Show me a link to Mr Bungle on Apple's music site. Not even a really obscure example, but I can guarantee it wont be there.

Well then (3, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434228)

I would like a service to give money to the artists I enjoy in exchange for the songs I like...

So the big question is (and always has been), are people generally more like you or more like me?

If the service really does offer MP3's for download at $1 a song, then we might get a chance to find out.

Re:Well (4, Insightful)

aziraphale (96251) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434320)

I think you've got to admit that a business model which financially rewards the creators of content is likely to be more sustainable in the long term than one based on 'everybody gets the content for free'. If you want to see the continued creation of music, you've got to consider how you can fund artists (not that I'm condoning the current business model which ensures that the few commercially successful artists that exist make thousands of times more than, say doctors, but hey... they deserve a few pennies for their efforts). Options like this one just might provide a better solution for that than the current publishing/distribution model.

The problem is that the existence of 'free' (modulo the long term social cost of killing the creation of future music) alternatives could prevent this potentially sustainable model from catching hold.

Normally, when a society wants to proscribe some activity which is destructive to its long term health (such as the widespread freeloading of music), it uses social norms and, in extreme cases, laws to prevent them. Hmm - maybe copying music without giving anything back to the artist ought to be socially unacceptable, or maybe even illegal?

hmmm (1, Informative)

mgs1000 (583340) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434155)

But if you burn it to CD, will you be able to still listen to it on your iPod. (without ripping that song back from the CDR)

Err no... (-1, Flamebait)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434207)

Because the iPod doesn't have a CD player...

I mean duh, dude do you know whut a iPod is.

This message was brought to you by the we don't think before we post association (WDTBWP) here on Slashdot

$1/song? I'll bite. (4, Insightful)

jpellino (202698) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434156)

Means I don't have to buy a whole album for one or two songs, the commpanies make just as much money so they're happy, aside from it's not free as in air, what's not to like?

Re:$1/song? I'll bite. (5, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434177)

Actually they might make less. They like charging you for filler songs.

Re:$1/song? I'll bite. (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434277)

>> the commpanies make just as much money

Umm, no, because before you payed 20 bucks for the Britney Spears album, now you pay a buck for the one song you like. They make 1/20th the profit.

change Britney Spears to whatever artist/group you think is 'cool'.

Re:$1/song? I'll bite. (1)

GlassHeart (579618) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434278)

the commpanies make just as much money so they're happy

Gosh, no. If you're allowed to purchase low-value goods piecemeal, you might buy it from someone else next time. That's why you have to buy 500 matches at a time, even if you just need one.

99c / track? (1, Funny)

peterpi (585134) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434158)

I can get them 99c cheaper on KaZaA.

... and that is why it will fail.

Re:99c / track? (2, Insightful)

discstickers (547062) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434203)

Yes, but what if that track was of higher quality then the crap you get on Kazaa? What if you were guaranteed a fast download, a complete song, and no virii?

I think it's worth looking into at least.

Re:99c / track? (5, Insightful)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434208)

"I can get them 99c cheaper on KaZaA. ... and that is why it will fail. "

Not if:

a.) The selection's good.
b.) The quality is guaranteed.
c.) The transfers happen quickly.
d.) There's an ability to preview the song.

Believe it or not, the price tag is not the major contributer to using Kazaa. It provides the best service. But it's got plenty of room for somebody with good bandwidth to come in and make a better model of it.

You have to remember, this is the same country where people drive gas-guzzling SUVS, pay $3.50 for a coffee and pay over $1.00 for bottled water. They want quality and service, the cost isn't really that big of issue.

Re:99c / track? (2, Funny)

milktoastman (572643) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434239)

However, now that you can get a track for 99 cents, you don't have the excuse that the Recording Industry is ripping you off to justify your theft. Now you are just stealing and you really can't bitch for getting busted.

Re:99c / track? (5, Insightful)

Maserati (8679) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434334)

Ket's face it. Kazaa is annoying. Sure, you can get free music. But you still have the problems of mislabelled files, low quality rips, disconnects, slow transfers, interrupted transfers, incomplete 'catalogues', scarcity of uncommon material... The list goes on and on. The BIG advantage of a commercial (B2P ?) service is that, unless Akamai goes down, the files are always Right There. It's the classic "you get what you pay for" situation.

An Apple-designed service can be expected to be well-designed, reliable, and cool. If 4 major record labels really do provide content this could take off in a major way. This could materially increase Apple's marketshare. Contrast this with Microsoft's DRM-laden plans and you'll see that there will be a clear choice

My employer pays a lot of ASCAP fees, and we have to support Limewire because we have legitimate needs for rapid access to a vast music library. The #1 question during the iTunes 'rollout' was "can I download MP3s with this ?" That answer is about to change.

Re:99c / track? (1)

SyntaxError (118900) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434347)

Parent post was modded as "Funny", but its unfortunate that it's listed at the top of my threshold three right now. The fact of the matter is, most people wouldn't pay for the music they own if they had the option between keeping their pirated copies, or purchasing new ones.


That being said, the community of people that DO join a music service for availability or error-free high-quality digital music will cause this service to actually take a corner of the market that the recording industry has been trying to stifle.


I think more people would be willing to join a music service if they could be assured that the revenue would actually reach the artist at some point, instead of being tied up in the RIAA or the recording industry.

Sounds good! (1)

NineNine (235196) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434161)

Sounds like a good deal! So if I want to download a 20 song CD, that'll only cost 20*0.99 + cost of CD + time to downlaod... oh wait. Back to FastTrack!

Re:Sounds good! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434206)

I would think that if you want the whole CD, it will probably be a discounted price.

Re:Sounds good! (1)

TheAlmightyQ (306969) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434323)

Yeah, and to buy it in a store it'll only cost $15 + cost of gas to get there + time to travel there + time to rip the song so I can listen to it in winamp.... Oh wait, it comes out about even

Dynamic Price Changes? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434168)

It's pretty neat when the posting states that it is $9.99 per song, then I go to complain and then I refresh Slashdot.com and it changed to $.99 per song....

Much better!

What was that Itunes plugin called?? (1)

oZZoZZ (627043) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434171)

The one that apple used the DMCA against to stop??

I suspose this is the reason they shut it down... makes sense to me.

Re:What was that Itunes plugin called?? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434229)

Apple didn't use the DMCA to stop "iCommune". It used the iTunes plugin agreement that developers sign when they get the plugin SDK.

Don't make something into a DMCA thing when its a simple matter of someone abusing the guidelines set down in the license agreement.

That said, I've used iCommune and its a pretty cool little plugin.

Still a little pricey. (5, Insightful)

FoxIVX (104861) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434172)

Follow:

99 cents a track.

~12 tracks on a disc.

~12 bucks for the music, and you have to provide the bandwith, physical media, and case. oh, and no liner notes.

Thanks, but I'll go to my local indie store, where they have the media, case, and liner notes all for 12 bucks.

Re:Still a little pricey. (1)

iksowrak (208577) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434241)

I'll be doing the same as you. But I think this is designed for people who like the 'one-hit wonder' songs and would have to buy 6-12 CDs to get 12 songs that they like.

Re:Still a little pricey. (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434248)

sure, for 12 bucks you get media, a liner, 2 good tracks and 10 you didn't want anyway.

so for my 12 bucks (and providing my own media at $0.35, liner if i want it), i get the equivalent of your buying 5-6 discs.

hmmm. $12 vs. $60 doesn't sound so bad, does it?

Re:Still a little pricey. (1)

Xaleth Nuada (516682) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434286)

".99 cents a track."

Works fine for me when I only want one track from an album/group. Sure if I'm looking at the entire album for purchase then yeah I'll head down to the store too. That's logical. Same deal with those who are looking for album artwork and liner notes.

Only works with a Mac? Now that's a problem. 'Cause whether I'm running Linux, Windows, or god forbid both I still can't get the music I want for a decent price.

Re:Still a little pricey. (3, Insightful)

Anonvmous Coward (589068) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434341)

"Thanks, but I'll go to my local indie store, where they have the media, case, and liner notes all for 12 bucks."

And some songs you don't want...

Verified details? (5, Interesting)

masonbrown (208074) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434178)

I find it interesting that the information comes from an unnamed source at an unnamed company, and no one will comment on it. Perfect food for the rumor sites, but the LA Times and San Jose Mercury?

Re:Verified details? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434257)

Isn't Slashdot a rumor site?

Apple DRM... (4, Insightful)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434185)

The new service would only be available to users of Apple's Macintosh line computers and iPod portable music players

Which indicates there is something in it that stops the rest of us using it. This would further indicate either a closed format with codecs only for these two. Or DRM on top of something that exists.

Now is that bad ? Maybe not, but I was pretty sure that the Slashdot perfect model was

Download for .99c and then burn to CD or email to your friends

Re:Apple DRM... (4, Informative)

pi radians (170660) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434236)

From other reports on the net, it sounds like the files will be AAC.

From the LA Times:
Sources said Apple will make the songs available for sale through a new version of iTunes, its software for managing music files on Macs. Users will be able to buy and download songs with a single click and transfer them automatically to any iPod they've registered with Apple....Rather than make the songs available in the popular MP3 format, Apple plans to use a higher fidelity technology known as Advanced Audio Codec.

Re:Apple DRM... (1)

tuffy (10202) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434255)

The new service would only be available to users of Apple's Macintosh line computers and iPod portable music players

Which indicates there is something in it that stops the rest of us using it. This would further indicate either a closed format with codecs only for these two. Or DRM on top of something that exists.

That only states the service is only available to Macs; it says nothing about the files. It's quite possible (and perhaps likely) that the service itself (its client-server protocol, validation method, etc.) will be Mac-only but spits out mp3s to the user for subsequent iPod-playing/CD-burning/etc.

Re:Apple DRM... (3, Funny)

aardvarkjoe (156801) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434262)

You forgot step 3:

Bitch that you had to pay 99 cents for the song.

Re:Apple DRM... (1)

tbmaddux (145207) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434280)

Which indicates there is something in it that stops the rest of us using it. This would further indicate either a closed format with codecs only for these two. Or DRM on top of something that exists.
Maybe not... it could still be MP3 format and simply managed in software by iTunes to sync only with your iPod. So, not real DRM, or new codecs, but something along the lines of how you "cannot" currently copy your iPod's music to another machine.

Re:Apple DRM... (1)

datacide (49123) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434313)

I can't speak for the iPod-only bit, but as far as the Apple-only portion goes, well, it could turn out to be either a separate application that only runs on Macs, or a feature integrated into iTunes.

There's a precedent, at least as far as integrating pay services into iApps, and that is iPhoto. Granted, it's not a Mac-only service, but Apple has done it before.

I can't see the iPod-only piece working without some sort of DRM, however, and I think (perhaps naively) that Apple wouldn't throw DRM into the mix this late in the game.

WTF (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434189)

The bars on South Street are closing at 7 tonight? No riot for me?

$.99 for a song?! (3, Interesting)

EnVisiCrypt (178985) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434192)

Cripes! Where do these people get their pricing ideas?

For a typical 12 song CD, that would cost as much as the meatspace equivalent. And when I purchase it for $12 at Target, or where ever else, I get to keep a physical token.

I could, however, see using this for hard to find CD's, like the bad plus [thebadplus.com] . A dollar per song would be worth it when I can't find it in stores, or wait for Amazon to special order it.

But for everything else, if they charged $.25 per song, they couldn't upload them fast enough for me. As long as they're a dollar, I'll think long and hard about downloading anything.

Re:$.99 for a song?! (2, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434249)

I'd go for it. 99 cents for a good song is perfectly acceptable. It's having to pay $17 for an album with only one or two good songs that sucks.

Re:$.99 for a song?! (1)

EnVisiCrypt (178985) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434337)

I agree, I would be more inclined to pay $.99 a song if I didn't like the other ten songs on a CD.

For me though, I need a way to sample the music beforehand, like maybe a ten song sample rotation so that I can hear the rest of the songs on a CD to see if they're worth a damn. The radio is so homogenized these days, it's hard to hear a sample of anything but Nickleback and Britney Spears.

So if they provided that $.99 is a lot more bearable for individual songs. They really ought to do a price break for full cd purchases though.

Re:$.99 for a song?! (1)

2starr (202647) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434281)

Well, except that you get to pick the songs. Most of the time, I really like 50-75% of a CD. Here, I don't pay for the songs I don't like. The price sounds good to me.

Re:$.99 for a song?! (2, Insightful)

Zathrus (232140) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434303)

At least now that 12 song, $12 CD is filled with 12 songs you actually like and not 2-6 good or decent ones and 6-10 pieces of crap.

But, hey, why am I surprised that people are still finding this too expensive? Hell, if they offered them at $.01/song then people would still bitch.

Excepting that this service doesn't apply to me (since I own neither a Mac nor an iPod), it sounds pretty damn good. I'd be happy to pay $.99/track for songs I like as long as they were high quality and readily available. I'd certainly buy more music than I do now.

Re:$.99 for a song?! (1)

wesmo (181075) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434310)

Don't you get it? You would be able to buy just the songs you wanted instead of the extra fluff that they throw on to that "meatspace equivalent".

So, in essence, you would only pay $12 for a 12 song CD if you wanted the whole CD. If you only wanted the songs you wanted, it would cost you a lot less (like $3 or $4) and you could do what you wanted with those songs to make your own compilation CD.

Re:$.99 for a song?! (0, Flamebait)

Tyler Eaves (344284) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434332)

BUt what about those of us that buy $12 CDs with 20 good tracks? (IE, Hendrix, SRV, Led Zep, etc)

Confllict with Apple Records? (5, Interesting)

MrMiyagi (141580) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434201)

I seem to remember Apple having difficulties working as a media business when another older company, Apple Records [beatle.net] (The Beatles), is still around. Perhaps they have worked something out.

More 1-Click fraud purchases? (1)

Sebby (238625) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434205)

Great, I bet they'll only have stuff for sale using Amazon's
'innovative' 1-click fraud^H^H^H^H^Hpurchase thingy only, no other way to purchase songs

drm? (1)

asv108 (141455) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434212)

Although there is no mention of the formats used for this service, I doubt the music industry would give their seal of approval without some form of DRM.

The best source for these rumors was /. (4, Insightful)

Elwood P Dowd (16933) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434214)

An anonymous slashdot post [slashdot.org] was the first good description of this whole rumor. No one thought it was reliable, but the fact that it didn't sound like it was written by a two year old helped its credibility.

I'm just waiting for some electronic music distributor to realize that they'll make more money if they distribute MP3s and use social pressures to discourage piracy. If an album cost $4 online, and they'll let you do whatever you like with the music, why would you steal?

Reditribution of songs (1)

LippyTheLip (582561) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434216)

I wonder how they are going to prevent these songs from being redistributed via P2P?

Of course, buying the CD does not prevent redistribution either, but, assuming that the interface will be typicallz Mac-easy-to-use, it seems that this will make pirating music easier for the average non-techie Mac-user.

Apple Corps (3, Funny)

Dylan2000 (592069) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434222)

Do you think they'll be offering Beatles [ipcreators.org] songs?

Even Apple doesn't get it... (3, Insightful)

sockit2me9000 (589601) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434224)

I'm as big of a Mac Zealot as you can get, but I think this too is doomed to failure. $.99 a song? Ripoff. This means that the average CD will still cost $10-$12 to download, and you don't get a CD, a jewel case, or liner notes. Legal music swapping will not catch on until it is significantly cheaper, like around $.25 or less. THAT is a good business model. I assume that this hinges on the record labels and that Apple is just performing as the middle man with these prices. I, for one, will still use Aquisition until the record companies stop gouging me.

Re:Even Apple doesn't get it... (1)

questamor (653018) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434324)

Personally, I don't give a shit for the case, liner notes, and physical apparatus surrounding a song, I buy music for the music.

When I have to buy an album for the 3 songs I like, with 10 mediocre ones, I'm paying $4 per song. maybe a bit less if some of the crud grows on me.

For 99c a track I pay $20 for 20 songs I fully choose, and KNOW I'll like.

Buy into the music, not the packaging, whether that packaging is the case, pretty pictures on it, or the crud filler that it's bundled with

Yay Apple! (1, Troll)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434226)

>> $.99 a song with the ability to burn to CD doesn't sound too bad.

Sure, and when you like punk stuff like me, a CD can easily contain 30 tracks.

Even for a more normal 10-15 track album, it's still retail prices, with the added bonus that you pay the production cost yourself, with your own burner and media.

If this service was from MSFT or Sony you'd hate it.

By the song, burnable, no monthly charge -- check (1)

ianscot (591483) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434227)

...won over music executives because it makes buying and downloading music as simple and nontechnical as buying a book from Amazon.com, one source said.

Well, Apple did pony up that "one-click" fee to Amazon, so it only makes sense. :-()

Hello? Why is Apple the only service that's not trying to force Columbia Records' 1976 purchase plan down our throats?? This is plainly what the market wants.

(On the other hand, iTunes 3.0.1 has a lot of false-positive problems for me with its burn protection for audible.com files... makes me pause.)

It's hip. It's quick. It's easy... (1)

rsborg (111459) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434230)

Yeah, but what's the format, what's the quality? Is there DRM? The article is light on details and heavy on the spin...

Personally, I'd be interested if:

  1. There were a chance to download a SHN or FLAC file for more
  2. There was no DRM
  3. and... it worked for windows/linux (as that's what I have at work/home).

Hmm... (2, Insightful)

blitzoid (618964) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434231)

This would be great and wonderful if people didn't already know about KaZaA/WinMX/Gnutella/etc. As much as you say "Hey, we've changed! Songs are cheap now and you can get them from home!" there will always be those people who say "That's great... but I can still get the same songs for free.". Frustrating to say the least.

Re:Hmmmmmmm... (5, Insightful)

adzoox (615327) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434358)

80% of music downloaders (polled) said they would pay for something affordable, unrestricted, easy.

I imagine it would be a much higher adoption rate, if it were all this, and the RIAA and record congloms saw $$ coming in.

But in a sense you are right. There will always be those that weren't going to pay for it to begin with.

Someone mentioned one of Apple's good philosophies above.

Kepp the honest people honest by offering incentive such as 5 liscense packs of OS X for only $70 more

Two things would get me to use this. (4, Interesting)

Hawthorne01 (575586) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434232)

1. No DRM, beyond that which is already in my iPod, meaning I am free to burn CD's as I please.
2. Catalog choices. If the selection is limited to Top 40 hits of the past ten years, no way. But if the choices are wide and deep (and maybe even out of print songs as was suggested earlier [janisian.com] , and
3. Previews, allowing me to edit out the album filler. $.99 is cheap, and most albums only have a max of 4 good tracks.

Re:Two things would get me to use this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434340)

You forgot:

4. A lesson in how to count

Brilliant! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434235)

This sounds great !

Artists get to promote their music world-wide, and we get to choose what's on the album. Let's say one CD fits 10 songs, it'll be $9.90 which, IMHO, is a fair price to pay.

I'll buy!

~3% Not Bad (5, Insightful)

skti (584238) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434247)

I'd definitely check this out, I like to buy my music. The article talks about how it is kind of an odd decision for the record industry to work with Apple because of their low marketshare. The thing is, a significant number of that ~3% have iPods, and I would think that anyone with an iPod has an obvious interest in digital music, and would be more likely to use a service such as this than other consumers. We'll see what happens...

Cut down on the rhetoric (1)

arvindn (542080) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434250)

It's hip. It's quick. It's easy. If people on the Internet are actually interested in buying music, not just stealing it, this is the answer.

If these guys are actually interested in selling music to people, not just pissing them off, then they need to soften their tone just a little bit.

Re:Cut down on the rhetoric (1)

nomadic (141991) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434312)

Slashdot posters: You're a bunch of money-grubbing, soulless monsters; the reason we steal money via P2P is because you idiots can't get your primitive brains around the idea that maybe you should give us an alternative to expensive store-bought CDs. Idiots!

Record exec: ok, ok, here it is. Now you don't have to steal music anymore.

Slashdot posters: Why are you insulting us like that?:(

Try before you buy (4, Insightful)

hafree (307412) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434252)

So long as I can preview it before paying for the download, and don't have to pay to re-cownload it if my CD gets scratched... While the RIAA is bitching about piracy, I've bought the same damn Nine Inch Nails CD 3 times at $17 a pop since 1993. I should really stop losing my stuff every time I move...

This will be successful... (1)

digerata (516939) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434256)

or at least I would sign up if... We can download in multiple formats: atleast OGG and MP3 *and* We can download CD quality bit rates: 320kb for MP3 and level 5 or 6 for OGG.

i buy albums (1, Interesting)

freeefalln (541648) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434265)

heres my thing. when i listen to a band, i listen to each of their albums on a whole. i dont listen to the radio at all, rely heavily on the internet and word of mouth for discovery of new bands. now, when i listen to an album, i listen to it was a single peice of art. i prefer not to listen to 'singles'. not because im some elitist prick, but because i dont like to be pushed into liking a song. while i understand that i might be very unlike the average consumer, i dont think im the only one with this viewpoint. also, unless this product is DRM-free, Apple can kiss my ass, just like all of those other music services.

My guess? (2, Informative)

Meat Blaster (578650) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434267)

At $.99/song, this has got to be heavily crippled in some manner. I'll place my bet now that the format will be restricted in some manner, such as one low-quality CD burn or transfer to iPod for $.99 with a bunch of DRM designed to tie the content to one system, and/or the offerings will be laughably slim.

Basically, I'll believe it when I see it, and even then I won't be able to buy in because I don't have a Mac. Has one of these services so far failed to disappoint?

Helping honest people stay honest (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434268)

"Helping honest people stay honest" was Apple's reasoning for their Family licencing for 10.2, it only added $70 to the price, and legally you could install it on 5 machines.

This seems to be the same mentality.

A buck a song? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434269)

That's a little steep (I'd suggest maybe a quarter a song), but I might buy into it if they have more than just top40 songs.

iPhoto Purchasing System (2, Insightful)

Trinity-Infinity (91335) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434270)

I absolutely love the system to order prints of my digital pictures through iPhoto. Not only is it simple to order (just a few clicks, apple-style), but the prints arrive lightining quick!

To order music through a similar system of Apple's would be a dream! I hope they're having success in offering a variety of services (.Mac, iphoto ordering, etc), and the addition of music seems a natural step for them to take.

The price is certainly right... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434271)

Now let's see if they provide high-quality OGG versions, then I might buy them :)

Yes, it sounds like yet another excuse not to use the service but OGG does sound better than MP3.

I'm looking forward to this. Hunting for songs on Kazaa/Gnutella/Whatever is a real pain sometimes - all you get is porn...

Be careful with amazon (1)

arvindn (542080) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434284)

it makes buying and downloading music as simple and nontechnical as buying a book from Amazon.com, one source said.

They're probably to come after you with their one-click patent as it is. You don't have to explicitly invite them ;^)

Re:Apple already Licensed Oneclick from Amazon (1)

destructo666 (526045) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434307)

Read it here [ecommercetimes.com]

Not Gonna Happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434285)

If people on the Internet are actually interested in buying music, not just stealing it, this is the answer.

iThinkNot

Doesn't make much sense (1)

xNullx (635439) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434288)

Some cds have as many as 30 tracks (I've seen more) and cost on average around 13-17$. So I can buy the cd itself for 13-17$, or I can download the songs for 30$? That doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me, but perhaps the point of the business model is to put the idea of buying the cd back in to the minds of the consumers.

Also, it mentions nothing of song length. Am I going to have to pay the same for a 30 second intermission track as I will a 9 minute song (Tool comes to mind)? Regardless, as long as Fasttrack and Gnuella stick around, I can't see any of this services doing well.

Re:Doesn't make much sense (1)

k_187 (61692) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434352)

Yes, but how many of the songs on those 30+ track CDs you've seen are worth listening to? I can only think of one or two artists that I've liked every track on an album. Most of my MP3s are just singles that while enjoyable, are not enough to make me go out and drop 15 bucks on the rest of the album. Now I'd pay a buck to get those singles at decent quality for me to burn or whatever. If by happenstance there's a CD with more than 12 songs on it that I like, then I'd go out and buy it. I don't imagine anybody downloading whole albums with this, especially given your example.

Its prob not $0.99/song. (1)

Gannoc (210256) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434291)

Assuming this is real to begin with; i'm sure its not a strict $0.99/song. I bet there will be a flat rate for entire albums, etc.

It goes against common sense to actually charge a completely flat fee for every song.

That said, if they do offer this, and the price is reasonable, i'll pony up the 150-200 it costs to make myself legal.

Read the article - it says nothing about $.99 (3, Informative)

Biologist (625020) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434292)

The article says nothing about a dollar per song. Let's get our rumors straight...

No more moral loophole (1)

milktoastman (572643) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434298)

Now, if this is true, people can't bitch about the RIAA to justify downloading free music. Now stealing moves from being a "matter of principle" to just plain stealing. The rationalizations are going to get pretty thin.

$0.99 is still too high... (2, Insightful)

da3dAlus (20553) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434304)

Case in point: Evenesence CD, out today.

-11 tracks @ .99ea, that's $10.89 from this service, just for the music (no case, CD, or lyrics).

-Alternately, the CD is 9.96 at my local Target.

-With tax, that's $10.65 (with CD cover, notes, lyrics, etc).

Can anyone then explain which is the better buy, especially after I pay for the DSL connection from home, and the blank CD?

Oh, and if I may add, the cost of the music for taking my friend to the store to get the CD, then rip it and share it with me...$0. Of course, that's just so I can listen to it and decide if I want to spend my $10.65 on it as well ^_^

Re:$0.99 is still too high... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434351)

Can anyone then explain which is the better buy, especially after I pay for the DSL connection from home, and the blank CD?

...because if you hate a couple of the tracks, you can exclude them and maybe replace them with some other hits?

AAC? (1)

sockit2me9000 (589601) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434308)

Well, Apple will be the first adopter again, apparently. At least they're innovating. Is ACC much better quality wise? Why use this format?

$5 A bloody song not bad? (1)

ebbomega (410207) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434309)

What planet did you grow up on?

World I come from, it costs $20 per full album (which is way more than 4 songs and gives you "professional" packaging).

Not to mention, I already pay a $0.20 tax on each CD I buy that goes to the RIAA, so I'm perfectly legally allowed to download ANY MP3S I WANT TO, considering I've already paid for them.

$.20 per CD is a shitload of a better deal than $5 per song...

Christ, $5 per song is a horrible deal ANYWHERE. Only possible way you could coerce me into buying that is if I was getting vinyls. Something tells me that's not what Apple is selling...

Re:$5 A bloody song not bad? (1)

ebbomega (410207) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434336)

My bad... frikkin' fonts...

Looked like it said 5.99 not $.99

Still, I'm not paying twice for the same thing...

Apple tsk.. tsk... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434311)

In this post, I'm not going to argue that what Apple is doing is akin to painting a mustache on the Mona Lisa. Nor am I going to argue that the central preconception in its paranoid style is the belief in the existence of a vast, vitriolic, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to extirpate the things I cherish. I'm not going to argue those factors, because they're irrelevant. Instead, I will say only that nearly all of the assumptions and statements made by it and its expositors are completely, absolutely, and totally wrong. In the rest of this letter, I will use history and science (in the Hegelian sense) to prove that I, for one, become impatient with people who refuse to recognize the key role that it is playing in the destruction of our civilization.

Apple doesn't want us to know about its plans to treat traditional values as if they were disaffected crimes. Otherwise, we might do something about that. Essentially, Apple contends that there is something intellectually provocative in the tired rehashing of sleazy stereotypes. Excuse me, but where exactly did this little factoid come from? Apple's antics symbolize lawlessness, violence, and misguided rebellion -- extreme liberty for a few, even if the rest of us lose more than a little freedom. The recent outrage at Apple's platitudes may point to a brighter future. For now, however, I must leave you knowing that Apple is always demanding money, sympathy, and the punishment of its critics.

.99$ is way to much (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5434316)

i would pay a quarter tops.

Perhaps not a good deal on some albums (1)

jhouserizer (616566) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434322)

I've got several albums that have ~30 tracks on them, but they're really a single, continuous piece of music (you couldn't stand to listen to any one track by itself - they aren't individual songs, rather something like "movements" of a larger piece).

With this service, would I pay $30 for such an album? or $1 ? Right now I pay $10.99 for it to Revelation Records [revelationrecords.com] .

Trademark? (0, Redundant)

Mwongozi (176765) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434325)

Gee, I hope the people at Apple Music [schomakers.com] don't mind too much.

LA Times (2, Insightful)

Scrameustache (459504) | more than 11 years ago | (#5434339)

According to this (registration required...bleah) article from the L.A. Times [latimes.com] , "Users will be able to buy and download songs with a single click and transfer them automatically to any iPod they've registered with Apple....Rather than make the songs available in the popular MP3 format, Apple plans to use a higher fidelity technology known as Advanced Audio Codec."

As seen on macslash [macslash.org]

What gets me is the "registered iPod" bit...can't we do anything anonymously anymore? Geeze!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>