Think about it. Even the entry level iPod holds 2,500 songs. So to fill it up (legally) with music from the iTunes store would cost an astounding $2500.


yah i thought about it. i don't want to steal.

I hope someone steals yoour just cashed paycheck some day.

ha.

I wanted to listen to a song the other day, looked around for my CD for a minute or so, got disgusted, and bought it at the ITMS. I already owned it, but Apple got it to me in under a minute for 99 cents.
Gotta love it.

i too think that $0.99 is too expensive for one song. i think the suggestion of $0.25-0.50 is too low, but somewhere in the middle, about $0.75, would be good. think about it: apple needs to cover the bandwidth cost, they need to keep some for profit, and some money needs to go to the artist. currently, they have limited distribution since it's only available to mac users. once it's on windows, they'll be doing a lot more business through the iTMS, so they'll probably be able to lower their margins while still keeping profits up. i hope so anyway...

I agree, $0.50 is more fair. These aren't CDs afterall, they're compressed AACs with play limitation. I'd pay $1.00 for an uncompressed version just like if I bought the CD. I'd even sacrifice the liner and packaging. If they won't do that, they should partner with Amazon to do a "download now, CD in the mail later" deal.

Uncompressed is a stupid idea. Uncompressed is not going to happen for a whole long list of issues.

1. Broad band is nice, but UNCOMPRESSED would mean AIFF or WAV downloads. as it stands now, if you wanted to buy an an average whole album on the iTunes store for $9.99, it would be maybe 60 MB or so in AAC. That's only a couple of minutes in download time. UNCOMPRESSED would mean that same album would be a 600 or 700 MB download. It would cost Apple alot more in bandwidth costs.. 2 people buying the album would net apple $20, but would cost them the price of moving 1.2GB to 1.4 GB of data compared to 120 to 140 MB with AAC.

2. Apple would need 10 fold the storage space for uncompressed at least. That much storage for 200000+ songs is not feasible.

3. For 97% of the population... with the average computer decoding software, or the average home stereo system, with the average speaker hardware, with the average human ear and human brain... AAC at 128 kbits/sec is GOOD ENOUGH. This is for the consumer, mind you... NOT THE AUDIOPHILE.

Apple's service is NOT for audiophiles. Distributing full 700 MB album images CAN ONLY benefit audiophiles who want the best sound. For consumers, its a complete waste. ALOT of people still have modems, and as it stands, buying a song on iTunes through 56k is not that bad... 10 minutes perhaps. but buying the same song in AIFF would take hours.

AAC is good technology. Uncompressed is a terrible terrible idea. iTunes is not for audiophiles. AAC is a compromise, but I challenge you to take the average internet music listener, sit him in front of his computer speakers and tell the difference. Or give him an iPod with an AIFF and AAC files and have him tell the difference. You can't. More important are quick download times, small files sizes ( so the average user doesn't flood his hard d rive with 700 MB disc images) and convenience. AAC does all of that, and its a GOOD technology.

"I agree, $0.50 is more fair. These aren't CDs afterall, they're compressed AACs with play limitation. I'd pay $1.00 for an uncompressed version just like if I bought the CD."

You people are forgetting something.. you're paying .99 because now you can get the singles/tracks that you want without the filler. You're paying for the CONVENIENCE!!! You're shopping at one of the largest online libraries in existence with instant searches and nearly instant downloads. The store is never 'sold out' of an album, etc.

Speaking of albums.. they're nearly all 9.99.. that's a far cry from 16.99+.. I'll gladly pay 9.99. Remember that these files are NOT ripped from CD, they're ripped from the Master tape/recording. Ripping from the master is going to yeild a better sounding file than the CD (at the same bitrate).

oh, and one more thing about compressed and uncompressed.

last i heard, 65 cents of the cost goes to the record label for the rights for each song... apple spends another 15 or 20 cents per song to host it and pay for bandwidth.

If we assume that bandwidth cost scales linearly with file size (it doesn't.. its likely fewer $ / kbyte with bigger files, but still, its also considerably larger) the figure for apple's costs would be $1.50 to $2.00. Or, at 50-100% more than the cost YOU pay.

Sorry. Uncompressed will never happen. Look at Kazaa and (the dead) Napster. VERY RARELY do people distribute albums using WAV. Why? because hosting that on your computer for p2p would most likely get your cable provider to slap on an upload cap.

"Think about it. Even the entry level iPod holds 2,500 songs. So to fill it up (legally) with music from the iTunes store would cost an astounding $2500."

You forgot about the 2500 leftover cents. It's 99¢ not 100. It would cost $2475 to fill it up legally.

:)

"Think about it. Even the entry level iPod holds 2,500 songs. So to fill it up (legally) with music from the iTunes store would cost an astounding $2500."

I think that's the idea. :)

WRONG...they do it because it's FREE." They" ,be it college students,financially incapable people,or cheap b*******... either don't have the money or would rather spend it on food or comp upgrades and pay for their high speed connection enabling them to pirate.Whatever else you can imagine would fall under "better spent on".The argument about
They either have the FREE time or make the time to do so....it's not like they're getting a salary simply for the hours they stay awake during the day, so how can you put a value on what is just a stupid wasteful amount of time?
To each his own...and furthermore on a whole you cannot compete with "free" unless free can kill you in the process.
Just my 2 cents...there I just saved you 97 cents ;-)

One word a** clown.

;O)

itms is great like all other apple products.
buymusic.com sucks my butt and makes me want to punch myself in the nutts. also you can compare buymusic.com to terms like 'peanutty plunger' and 'butt plug' and 'a** hat' and 'dumb a**' and 's*** yer pants' and 'stupid pig-dog' and 'pubic hair floss' and 'stinky grundle' and 'r*****' and 'nurdle'.

phew

I'll buy that for a dollar!

As someone mentioned, I think this is the way to go. Download an entire album and you get the 'hardware' in the post later.

Not only does this encourage album sales (with a carrot rather than a stick) with it allays the audiophile's grumbles about compressed audio...

Ater all, the cost of a cd is pretty minimal - and they could always slap on shipping (as if they wouldn't...)

But being a college student with limited funds and having to save up for a down payment on a car, apartment, and a wedding when I graduate in four months makes it impossible for me to justify spending money on what I can get for free.

However, I'll definitely start buying music when I start my new job, starting at $25/hour. :D

The time spent on downloading a cd is only a valid comparison if its using up time that would be spent working. If you're only scheduled for a certain number of hours per week of working, or you've hit 40 hours, the rest of your time is worth 0 per hour (fiscally).

24 hours - 9 hours of work - 2 hours of commute - 7 hours of sleep - 3 hours for meals , personal hygenie, & home upkeep / cleaning = 3 Hours of free time.

I don't know about you but those 3 hours are worth a lot to me.

CD's really aren't audiophile either, vinyl on its first pass is superior as are several analog tape formats (1/2", 1", 2") and 24bit digital audio(at all sampling rates).

with their strategy to compete with music file swaping.

The so called "free" and illegal music available currently is not only quite limited in choice and quality but with the RIAA now agressively pressing charges against even small time downloaders illegally downloading music from the internet is going to become increasingly more hazardous.

The fool who thinks "you cannot compete with free" obviously hasn't a clue because Apple is proving that statement wrong with every passing week it continues to sell 1M+ songs...

> But being a college student with limited funds and
> having to save up for a down payment on a car,
> apartment, and a wedding when I graduate in four
> months makes it impossible for me to justify
> spending money on what I can get for free.

Since you legally can't get it for free, then you should do without if you have other things to spend your money on. That's what you did before there were file-swapping networks, and that's the way you should do it now. You can't have your cake and eat it, too (legally).

And if you don't care, then like another poster said, "I hope someone steals your just-cashed paycheck" because that's what you're doing to the artists whose music you're stealing.

"Think about it. Even the entry level iPod holds 2,500 songs. So to fill it up (legally) with music from the iTunes store would cost an astounding $2500. That's a lot of money to spend on music."

Well, yeah. Besides STEALING THE MUSIC, how else are you going fill your iPod? iTMS is still less than buying the CD off the shelf, especially if all you're going to do in the end is rip the cd and upload it to your iPod.

...that is $2475 to fill up your iPod with music that has been all purchased, and that's purchased by single-track only. Albums sell for $9.99, and you typically get MORE than 10 tracks, so that takes a little more off the $2475.

I also believe that Apple knows people are going to rip their CDs they already own and put them on their iPods, so that's free (in terms of the iTMS). It won't cost you $2475 to fill up your iPod unless you're a complete moron and buy 2500 single tracks to put on the iPod. Buy some albums, save a buck or two that way and put some of your own CDs on the iPod.

"But being a college student with limited funds and having to save up for a down payment on a car, apartment, and a wedding when I graduate in four months makes it impossible for me to justify spending money on what I can get for free."

Like you're going to have unlimited funds when you graduate?

Try "...spending money on what I don't really need anyway..."

(1) go buy a used car.
(2) two of you are going to be paying for the apartment, so it's half of what you think.
(3) you can get married for about $5-10K - go google "wedding costs" and learn and be creative and happy - we did it for under $8K for 100 very happy upper middle class people.

Here's an idea - listen to your existing music for four months (BTW who graduates in November?) and do without.

Here's another - wedding gifts. Register at Amazon and list a mess of CDs.

If your most creative idea is to rip off musicians, then I wish you luck when it comes to the really hard stuff.

Gad, to be fresh out of college again...

I know file swapping is mostly a waste of time. I did get on Napster a few weeks before the plug was pulled. Most of the stuff was c***. I was able to replace some choice songs from some stolen CDs. The great thing about MP3 is that I can back up ALL my music to nearly CD quality. My room mate is into file swapping and most the time the song or movie is not what it say... even the highly compressed movies take a long time to downloand on broadband (1.2Mbps DSL).

I do think AAC is better than MP3, but it would be nice if Apple offered higher bit rate options - maybe even to charge a bit more (no pun intended). I normally encode MP3s at 200 to 300kbps. I think ACC would have the same or similar qualtiy around 160 to 196kbps.

One of the nice things about iTMS is it is SIMPLE. Most people (esp Windows people) seem to forget this. I do not want to sign up for some bloatware music service.

When CD's came out they were around $20/CD - at 10 songs/CD that means $2/song - or $5,000 to fill up an iPod. Now many retail CDs are $15 - and with the same 10 song average that means you still pay $3,750!

"Like you're going to have unlimited funds when you graduate?"

No, but I'll have surplus funds. Right now I'm making $10 an hour, and after rent, bills, food, gas, saving and books I have about $7.50 a month for fun. I downloaded most of my music through Napster my freshman year. Should I not have ANY fun or (good) music at all until I grow up? No friggin' thanks. I want to enjoy my youth.

"go buy a used car."

Check. 2001 Golf TDI, gets 50mpg

"you can get married for about $5-10K"

Our budget is $7K for 150 guests. That's $7K I need to save between now and 10/04.

"Here's an idea - listen to your existing music for four months."

What do you think I've been doing? I'm saying that if/when I download, I don't have the money to pay for it. I'm a charity case, and I'm not the only one, either. Most college students would love to pay for music, but can't because they have no money, and $15-$20/CD is inflated and wrong. Imagine you're hungry, and someone leaves tons of bread out in the open, unguarded. Are you going to sit there and wish you could buy some or take a loaf?

"BTW who graduates in [December]?" - Smart people. Four months, 21 days.

To the poster of this

Unbelievable.

The level of maturity and moral acceptability here is completely astounding. As a published musician I contend that paying for it is the equivalent of my salary at the end of the month. Would this poster work for free???? The ultimate conclusion here, my friend, is that if we all follow your example the arts would fail and musicians all over the world would have no reason to create music in the first place. Not all of us are Madonna's, Michael Jackson's or The Beatles.

iTMS is the way forward for all musicians which means that you gotta stick your hand in your pocket sometimes and pay for the service.

Your attitude is sickening and morally corrupt and frankly you need to grow up. The world with you in it is not wonderful (to quote the great Satchmo) it is the world of the thief and the spiv.

Just a pity that we here in Ireland cannot avail of the service as yet. I will use it and more importantly - I WILL PAY.

At least I can sleep at night.

What's the difference between me downloading a song and me ripping the CD from a friend? Isn't that how you old fogeys got music in college? Well, with analog tapes anyway.

To everyone flaming the college kid, I hope you realize that this attitude is prevalent in colleges everywhere. Some kids do not even know it's stealing.

Most of the time, people simply ask "why pay when it's so easy to get it for free?" They're obviously not concerned with legality or morality.

"No, but I'll have surplus funds. Right now I'm making $10 an hour, and after rent, bills, food, gas, saving and books I have about $7.50 a month for fun. I downloaded most of my music through Napster my freshman year. Should I not have ANY fun or (good) music at all until I grow up? No friggin' thanks. I want to enjoy my youth."

Oh give me a break! You "enjoying" your youth is stealing the paycheque from the artists you listen to. You can try to justify it all you want, but in the end your are still a selfish thief.

I didn't have money or file swapping when I was in university, but I still managed to enjoy it ok. What's your problem? You aren't owed anything for free. If you want music, do the right thing and work hard to get more money to pay for it - or do without. Try to build a little bit of integrity for yourself.

The difference is in the distibution channel.

There is not alot of money lost if you copied a cd, or ripped a cd from a friend. Why? Because your friend paid for the original cd. The distribution is only between two people.

Now if you take that song, and allow it to be uploaded on Kazza or Limewire, you're allowing thousands/millions of users to also have access to that music. The distribution is now amoungst the hundreds/thousands of people who download the song - it is no longer just between you and your friend.

Back in the day, you might have allowed your friends to borrow a record. When tapes came around, you might have allowed your friends to copy a tape a couple times. However, there was not method for you to distribute that analog tape to thousands of people at once.

Technology has made it too easy to send data from one place to another. Because it is so easy, we often do not consider the content or ramifications of our actions. Sometimes people are shocked to learn that downloaded songs from Kazaa or Limewire is illegal. "But it's so easy and free!", might be their comment. But really think about it. Would you go into a store and but a CD in your pocket, then walk out before you pay? Some people would say that's just as easy. "No one will notice... I'll just walk right out the door." Obviously most people would never dare do this; so why do they have a problem if they steal over something over the net?

Quite frankly, it's your generation that will have a difficult time understanding why it is illegal. You've grown up in a time when information and data flows like water from the tap. Yet, like most your age, you again fail to understand the consequences of not paying for that water.

Simle Solution for College Kids: An index of who has what CDs and how to contact them. Copy them all they want without the RIAA getting all uppity. A simple firewall config would only allow access to the server through the campus network, and since it's not transmitting any data, there's no way to prosecute.

I agree with the real world approach with regard to subscriptions. I don't rent CDs so I wouldn't expect a download site to build in expiration technology that I wouldn't use if they paid ME.

I disagree however, that faster is necessarily competition to free. It's darned hard to compete with free. However, if they were to promote it as fast AND legal. Then there's something real and meaty to hang yer sales cap on. ;-)

"...about $7.50 a month for fun. I downloaded most of my music through Napster my freshman year. Should I not have ANY fun or..."

Nobody said you should have ANY fun. Buy a radio. Borrow CDs.

"Check. 2001 Golf TDI, gets 50mpg"

Sheesh. if it's an average '01 TDI, that's still a $14,000 car.

"Our budget is $7K for 150 guests. That's $7K I need to save between now and 10/04."

No, you need to save half that. Ditto your spouse. Hello? Plus you're going to get a mess of money after your wedding. And if you'r going to be pulling down $25/hr ($52K/yr) and you can't save half of $7K (that's less than 10% of your take-home) then you need to go back a few steps.

"What do you think I've been doing? I'm saying that if/when I download, I don't have the money to pay for it."

What do I think you've been doing? Um, I think you've been stealing (take it, don't pay for it).

"I'm a charity case, and I'm not the only one, either."

No, you're not a charity case. I can show you what a charity case looks like if you'd like to see one, but you're not it. Charity cases do not have 2 year old turbocharged cars and completed college educations AND pull down $20K/yr.

"Imagine you're hungry, and someone leaves tons of bread out in the open, unguarded. Are you going to sit there and wish you could buy some or take a loaf?"

But that's not what you're doing. By your own analogy, it's more like you're going to the houses of known hijackers, getting bread from them after they stole it off a bread truck.

Besides, this isn't bread and you're not starving.

Good luck in the real world.

The statement is either wishful thinking or just plain propaganda. Anyone who has used P2P knows how time consuming it is to get a full download with correct checksums (just to find that it is an expired beta after all) in the case of software or to find the files of favorite artists you want in the case of music. Clearly, the popularity of P2P drastically lies in its illegally free price after having shelled out so much money on hardware (upgrading computers roughly every third year and increasing RAM and storage capacity much more often) amidst housing, car, and other debt payments. This may not be the case for people with $60,000+ USD annual incomes, though, but they're unlikely to use P2P after all.

To you moral-highgrounders:

Let’s keep things in perspective, here. These college kids are copying a nonconsumable digitial product produced by multimillionaire artists and distributed by multibillion dollar corporations. They are not stealing nonrenewable resources that should go to someone else. They're just failing to add extra Jaguars to the artists’ garages, and that doesn't drain their incentive to produce more music. It is not as if kids are stealing music from obscure struggling artists who haven't made their millions yet.

Sure, digital theft is wrong, but I would much rather have my daughters steal music when they are older than for them to ever engage in premarital s**. As one Church leader said, any truly loving parent would prefer to have their sons come home from WWII in a casket with their purity preserved than to have them lose what is most precious in the world to prostitutes or the grateful liberated European women. I doubt that many of you anti-P2P advocates would care much about this infinitely greater sin and the uncomparable loss of chastity.

As a freelance translator and editor, I have people steal my intellectual property all the time without properly paying as they promised, but I never seek legal recourse. I just bought a 1988 car last year as my first vehicle at the age of 38, and I've always refused Employment Insurance payments and welfare from the government when in desperate need. I've never owned a credit card. The list goes on. However, I have downloaded a few songs and software titles, as I believe most other competent computer users who are aware of P2P have done. It is not good, but it certainly doesn't carry the gravity of sin of premarital, extramarital, or homosexual s** in the eternal perspective, more worthy of the dire tone being used by you moral-highgrounders.

You've said many thing that I find incredible BUT how could you go out and buy a car from 1988; its falling apart by now. At least buy from the early 90's. Since its your first car and its an old peice of c*** you will think all cars suck like this one and will forever preach against car ownership. I wonder, when a used car changes hands, if it requires a license fee to be paid back to ford or gm. After all, there's intelectual property in the vehicle (like the computer under the dash). F@#K ME--