High-fives to Apple Engineering all around for getting this baby out before too many competitors appeared ... this will demolish most of them.

My understanding is that the experience will be as much like the Apple version as possible.

As for our Canadian pals ... I hear that you might get some relief before the end of the year. Twould be nice ...

What format will the music be in, what DRM? How thick are you? And you want *better* quality than what iTMS offers for Mac users? So what are they going to have a special "Elite Windows Users Only" section that will feature extra special high quality music downloads?

I gotta say, as no one else ever points this out, but why is it that all of a sudden everyone's an audiophile when it comes to mp3, aac, wma, ogg vorbis, etc. when we're talking about *compressed* audio in the first place. Most everyone who listens to compressed music does so in either...
A: headphones
B: a noisy environment such as an office
C: their car
D: their computer speakers or "multimedia" setup

I don't imagine many people are sitting in their acoustically designed living rooms listening to mp3's through their $10,000 speaker system, SO PLEASE SHUT UP! Assuming the data rates are high enough, the only difference you most likely hear is your own biased attitude.

r.e
> I don't imagine many people are sitting in their acoustically
> designed living rooms listening to mp3's through their $10,000
> speaker system, SO PLEASE SHUT UP! Assuming the data rates
> re high enough, the only difference you most likely hear is your
> own biased attitude.

Actually just as I read this I was listening to REM on my £1000 surround speakers, through my £800 receiver in MP3 format. Dang. Sounds good to me though!

I doubt that Apple will charge for iTunes. With iTunes you can use the Apple store, which is what they are aiming for i think.

Yes it would, but don't think Apple is that 'stupid?' although the COSTCO approach where you pay money so you can spend money thrives in our economy.

I too agree that MindShare is a BIG thing so iTMS as well as a Low Low End iPod (512MB Flash Memory) or sumthing for $99 would also help big time. (I'd be able to afford one!)

MindShare would also be helped if they started opening up Canadian/Europian versions as well! Can you imagine all of Europe with iPods using iTMS.

The potential for money flow is quite amazing.

Will Apple also give away the encoders with the Windows versions of iTunes.

"At a profit of less than 10 cents per song, the music store does not represent a major income opportunity for Apple," [Needham analyst Charles] Wolf wrote in the July report. Still, the company could benefit from increased iPod sales, he said.
Well, duh. Steve Jobs has already said the exact same thing.

Great job being an analyst. Parrot what the CEO says and put it down to your keen "instinct."

"...as well as a Low Low End iPod (512MB Flash Memory) or sumthing for $99 would also help big time. (I'd be able to afford one!)"

This is the dumbest idea I have ever heard. Flash MP3 players suck a**. Why don't you just go crawl up and die?

I don't think it's that dumb, just your response to this guy (gal?).

Giving consumers a choice at the low end of product instead of having to look at the others out there helps with that mind share thing.

The reason Apple hasn't offered a low end iPod ($150 and under) is that it would significantly draw sales away from their $299 model. For example, if you are giving an iPod away as a gift, you're probably going to go with the least expensive model (unless money is no object and they really want that 40 GB model :-)).

If even the 5 GB model holds a 1000 songs, that sounds like plenty for mom and dad. So they'll then spend maybe $150 on a 5 GB when they were going to spend twice as much before for their son or daughter.

I'm sure Apple's done their math and figured a low end iPod wouldn't be worth the while in regards to profits.

...for a refurb original 10GB on the Apple store, ditto a ton of refurb demos on eBay for $179-189, buy-it-now.

I'd trust the Apple refurbs first, but it's quite a deal.

I have a used original 5GB that's still going strong, and I wished they'd pulled a Renault and sold the originals at a reduced price alongside the new ones, but that prolly doesn't drive profits.

>>> hope Apple marketing budget for this is HUGE. It doesn't matter if the iTMS is better than the other services - Apple needs the mindshare big time on this one to get the ball rolling on Wintel and not botch an opportunity to become a leader in this new market.

Do they need someone like AOL say that they're standing behind the Apple's iTMS service to give it a kick?

If Apple's only making 10cents/song I'd think it'd take a while to profit from their investment ... someoen like AOL would realize this and throw their weight behind them??

I'm very concerned that if even a small percentage of the 97% Windows market hits the iTMS we Mac users will be in for a huge disappointment in response and performance. Apple has not had the experience to deal with this kind of potential volume.

I hope Apple and Akamai are gearing up for this.

I heard Napster's supposed to roll out next Thursday too. I wonder who moved up the roll out date? Apple or Roxio?

napster (and many others) are going with wma. personally i hope apple never goes that way.

This is going to save apple! This is going to crush Microsoft! This is going to save the music industry! Apple is going to make a kajillion dollars from this!

it filtered out my [sarcasm] tags

Well, duh. Steve Jobs has already said the exact same thing.

Great job being an analyst. Parrot what the CEO says and put it down to your keen "instinct."
****
Too bad you are not smart enough to get that job and get rewarded handsomely for doing nothing then. Sour grape loser.

- Analyst :)

Napster: more restrictive DMA via WMA, no iPod support.
Apple: support for nearly every MP3 player.

Napster: WMA audio quality, which can be quite good at high bitrates but this store won't have that (or will charge extra for it).
Apple: Every report I've seen shows that AAC is better than WMA at the same bitrate.

Napster: COSTS EXTRA if you want to burn, copy, etc your music.
Apple: No extra cost.

Napster: WMA = no significant space saving over MP3
Apple: AAC = significant space saving over MP3

Napster: will probably have more indie stuff available at launch; may have more songs (500,000 perhaps?)
Apple: Is adding indie stuff but is only just starting; hasn't updated their song count but I would wager it's close to 400,000 by now so they're not that far behind

Napster: Their "brand name" support is pretty soft IMHO; some people will be disappointed that songs aren't free anymore (simpletons)
Apple: Everyone knows the deal.

If superior technology and service were all that mattered, Apple wouldn't have a thing to worry about. Too bad the masses are so stupid. Apple has a good shot at being #1 or #2 in this market though, particularly if they can find a way to bring the cost of the iPod down just a bit (say $50).

What a bonehead comment and a s*** attitude. I have a $15,000 system and the difference between AAC and CD sound quality is negligable. The added convenience of listening to music conveniently and "doing it MY way" far outweighs playing cookie-cutter CD's with 12-17 songs on them. I have a spendy CD recorder that I'll gladly sell you so I can get an iPod. I can't wait to tell all my PC friends that they can now get iTunes.

All of you don't get it. Apple is releasing iTunes for Windows, but not as download or seperate boxed software. It will come bundled with new iPods only and won't work unless the iPod is plugged in to the computer.

riiiiiiiiiiiight

who said that Apple doesn't have any experience with Windows downloads...

ummm.... ever heard of the Trailer page ?!?! It's like a 100MB dl for 1 large video !! And that's where everyone goes, windows or mac

And what about the 400'000 or so downloads per day of QuickTime and the peaks of SW updates downloads every time a new version of Apple software comes out? I don't think the bandwidth will be any issue at all.

I don't have a $15k system & to be honest I can't even enjoy MP3s because of the high end falloff & distortion fatigue... AAC is better but only AIFF really works for me - so if iPods continue to get higher capacity & the ITMS would offer such downloads this 'might' lure me away from CDs & LPs, but ultimately (like digicam lens issues) I am still not able to truly enjoy the 'digital lifestyle' until the quality is at least comparable to what I am used to...

will be a good thing because now all my pals will be able to see for themselves how cool iTMS is... Many of them already have Apple-envy-lust due to iPods and iMovie - iTMS for Windoze will only fuel that further.

As for the digital lifestyle the only thing really holding me back from taking my copious number of CDs to MP3 (or ACC) is the lack of a clean solution for iPod use in my 3 vehicles. This new product to connect an iPod to an auto stereo looks promising but it's not out yet.

http://icelink.densionusa.com/

Hello auto electronic mfgs (or Apple?) - there is a HUGE market waiting for you to help iPod users get the tunes into their cars...

No, you just think AIFF really works for you. You have a psychological hearing problem, you think you can hear a difference, but you really can't. You want to think you have such good hearing that it takes to truly discern the difference at that level, but really, you don't.

Hope that helps.

:-)

you know, i can tell the difference between 128 aac's and the cd. 128 closes the sound in a little box, while sounding better than an mp3 from 128-160. when you move up from 128 aac to 160, you will notice a big difference. the sound opens up, allowing you to hear more instruments (i was listening to Metallica S&M at the time).

I'm surprised about the amount of people who have no problem listening to compressed audio...not to mention the fact that they dont hear the difference. I do listen to mp3/aac in the betweens but the spectrum mostly sucks.

AIFF/WAV ofcourse is better than MP3 BUT I don't believe that the Ipod can playback the additional sound information past 320bps so whats the point? Why clog your Ipod with extra sound that can't be heard? Encod up to 320 like I do and enjoy it like that with alot more room on the drive for more songs. Ipod is a very good sounding MP3 player, better than the rest BUT, I have owned an Iriver disc mp3 player and the mp3s sounded a bit better than the Ipod. The problem with it is that I jog an the iriver (slimX) skips, the ipod doen't end of story.
Mac is the best/Windose is the pest!

...just typos

People, 128 bit AAC is NOT CD quality. Stop kidding yourselves. Most of the time you will not notice a difference but you WILL with some types of songs (especially electronica). If you don't think so, do some research on the net and listen to the people who have done the exhaustive comparisons, especially the AAC vs ogg vs LAME mp3 comparisions. Certainly 128 bit AAC is better then 128 MP3, but that's not saying a whole lot. To get even CLOSE to CD quality, you need AT LEAST 160 AAC.

The fact is, it was pretty obvious to people when iTMS came out that 128 bit AAC was pretty lame. It seemed Apple, as they often do, wanted to just explain away their product as "consumer", somehow suggesting that they quality that they give is is "good enough". Which is of course, a complete bunch of c***. Just because something is "consumer" doesn't mean it has to suck a**. Apple is simply being lazy, or they are trying to cut costs, or they have some agreement to use 128 bit. So stop making appologies for them. There is NO REASON in the world they can't offer 160 bit AAC for those who want it, except for the fact they are cheap to buy the storage space and too lazy to do the extra encoding.

> A: headphones
> B: a noisy environment such as an office
> C: their car
> D: their computer speakers or "multimedia" setup
From what I hear, for audiophiles, a good set of headphones is the only way to fly.