This just ain't Apples week.

[markw]

First, that battery thing comes to light. Now this...

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...&cvqh=itn_ipod

Actually, This was the main reason I went with a Sandisk player. I don't like being "coerced" into using only one supplier.

[paul_pci]

First, that battery thing comes to light. Now this...

http://www.comcast.net/news/index.js...&cvqh=itn_ipod

Actually, This was the main reason I went with a Sandisk player. I don't like being "coerced" into using only one supplier.

Your reason is pretty lame considering we're "coerced' into using one supplier for many of life's resources, services, and products. Like Microsoft hasn't asserted a long time monopoly over IE or their media files. Sychronization of sofware and hadware is not coercion. There is no proprietary monopoly here. I can take music from any commerical service, legal or not, and import files into iTunes and go from there. This is a non problem. The French should probably focus their efforts on eating less cheese and smoking less.

[markw]

Your reason is pretty lame considering we're "coerced' into using one supplier for many of life's resources, services, and products. Like Microsoft hasn't asserted a long time monopoly over IE or their media files. Sychronization of sofware and hadware is not coercion. There is no proprietary monopoly here. I can take music from any commerical service, legal or not, and import files into iTunes and go from there. This is a non problem. The French should probably focus their efforts on eating less cheese and smoking less.

Keeping a business system in step with many, many software problems is not the same as buying music. While the big, bad MS sticks in my craw, I'll admit that, on the whole, it has been a stablizing force in the computer industry. It provides and maintains a *stable* platform from which many applications are launched.

Now, do I need that for my music? No.

How would you like being told you can only by books from Barnes and Noble? I don't think so.

Would you stand for it if they told you can only buy hardware from Best Buy? I doubt it.

So, I don't see why you're so complacent about being forced, not coerced, into buying all your on line music from Itunes.

I'll keep my Sandisk which can be loaded from virtually anything, except Itunes of course. I like my freedom of choice. Just download, click and drag. Now, for those that can't or don't want do that, well, then perhaps the simplistic Itunes interface should be an option. but to force it on everyone? I don't think so.

I suppose you'll now want to say that this Ipod Hi Fi is the next best thing in the audio world too?

[Mike Anderson]

Is the article really accurate? I haven't had any problem putting other music on my iPod.

As I understood it, the main objection people have is that music from the iTunes Store cannot be played on other devices -- not that the iPod can't play music from other sources.

So don't buy music from the iTunes Store. Even better, don't upgrade to iTunes 6, and just use jhymn to unlock your music.

[paul_pci]

Mark, I think maybe you're misinformed about iTunes, although my clarification will do llittle to win you over. The music store within iTunes is merely one, and not the only one, means of purchasing digital music online. For instance, a friend and I had a subscription to emusic.com and I downloaded a few cds and imported them into iTunes and then to my iPod. Therefore your analogies really don't hold up, especially the Barnes and Noble one. Apple in no way claims or configures that the consumer can only buy music from the iTunes music store or that music acquired elsewhere won't work on iTunes/iPod. That's just not true. For me personally, most of the music I have on my iPod comes from my CD collection and some music downloaded from various sources which will remain unnamed. I've never bought a song from the music store, but I have plenty of music acquired from non iTunes sources. Your BB analogy might be more fitting, but I just don't see the problem. iTunes is free. Yes, you must have it to transfer music to the iPod, but really, where is the harm. Again sychronization is not coercion. Apple is not making you buy anything, nor are they preventing you from acquiring music from any other source. Again, I think you're misinformed here. There's nothing that you can do with your Sandisk that iTunes cannot accomodate to any user. I have great control and customization with iTunes and thus my iPod.

Lastly, I don't think the iPod or any related accoutrement is the latest great thing in hi-fi. Give me some credit; I'm not that delusional.

[markw]

Mark, I think maybe you're misinformed about iTunes, although my clarification will do llittle to win you over. The music store within iTunes is merely one, and not the only one, means of purchasing digital music online. For instance, a friend and I had a subscription to emusic.com and I downloaded a few cds and imported them into iTunes and then to my iPod. Therefore your analogies really don't hold up, especially the Barnes and Noble one. Apple in no way claims or configures that the consumer can only buy music from the iTunes music store or that music acquired elsewhere won't work on iTunes/iPod. That's just not true. For me personally, most of the music I have on my iPod comes from my CD collection and some music downloaded from various sources which will remain unnamed. I've never bought a song from the music store, but I have plenty of music acquired from non iTunes sources. Your BB analogy might be more fitting, but I just don't see the problem. iTunes is free. Yes, you must have it to transfer music to the iPod, but really, where is the harm. Again sychronization is not coercion. Apple is not making you buy anything, nor are they preventing you from acquiring music from any other source. Again, I think you're misinformed here. There's nothing that you can do with your Sandisk that iTunes cannot accomodate to any user. I have great control and customization with iTunes and thus my iPod.

Lastly, I don't think the iPod or any related accoutrement is the latest great thing in hi-fi. Give me some credit; I'm not that delusional.

I realize now that you can load anything into an ipod. From what my second cousin says, the itunes interface "sweeps" your 'puter for all music, brings it into it's own file and then loads it into your ipod. This does lend itself to tha fact that music from any source can be input to an ipod.

My next questions would be:

1) Can anyone download music from Itunes onto their own computer without an Itunes interface?

2) Can it be done in WMA format?

3) Can it then loaded into a device other than an Ipod?

[N. Abstentia]

The more I find out about iPods the more I'm glad I got a Sansa too!

[teledynepost]

I think it's just absurd to sell a $300 piece of equipment with a battery that can't be replaced.

[anamorphic96]

I think it's just absurd to sell a $300 piece of equipment with a battery that can't be replaced.

Yes it can. Where did you here that ? Do a google search.

http://eshop.macsales.com/Catalog_Pa...wer%20Adapters

[teledynepost]

What? Do you have to dis-assemble it? I thought it was built in.

[anamorphic96]

It is built in. But replaceable. You can send it in to Apple or other places that peform changes. Apple charges 100.00 bucks but their are others as shown in the link above.

[teledynepost]

It is built in. But replaceable. You can send it in to Apple or other places that peform changes. Apple charges 100.00 bucks but their are others as shown in the link above.

Yeah, that's what I meant. I was aware you could send it to Apple for 100 bucks. Absurd.

[nightflier]

What no one is addressing here is that we're being asked to pay $1 a song for a lower quality format. No matter how you slice it, 12 ACC files downloaded & written to a CD (without artwork) will not sound like the store-bought disk. Who decided this lower-quality format should cost $1? Why not 25 cents or 10 cents, especially for those older re-re-re-re-released tunes?

The real danger is that this could become the only available source for music in the near future just because it is more convenient (and more profitable for them). That may be so, but in the end we're all paying more for something that is of lower quality and that we probably already own in another format. To top it off, the industry is trying its darndest to prevent me from transfering store-bought disks and tracks to my computer.

If you ask me, they are trying to kill the format altogether so that I won't have any other choice than to buy online. It's about quantity over quality (gee haven't we heard that before?). If it wasn't for open-source and open standards (we can thank the cheese-eating French and beer-drinking Germans for a lot of this), we would already be subscribing to a pre-established repetitive favorite 50 tunes for which we would be paying $30 a month for.

The iPod and iTunes are cute and cuddly, to be sure, but there is a bigger picture here.

[paul_pci]

I thought when digitally compressed audio files were written to a CD that it decompressed the files, thus making them indistinguishable from a store bought CD.

[Groundbeef]

Alright NightFlier, I have to take issue with your post. I realize that you are unhappy about having to pay $1.00 for a song that is compressed. But I would argue it is far less expensive to purchase 1 song, than spend $12-17 for a full CD for 1 song you like.

These record compaines are not a non-profit charity. Like it or not, this seems to be the system that music listener's have been asking for. I can't count how many times I have bought a CD, only to find out I got 13 tracks of filler, and 1 hit. At least now I can spend the money for what I want, not what the record company puts out.

And the best part is, if I like to music, I can ALWAYS buy a hard copy (CD) if I want the full sound.

Also, I am not sure if you are aware, but you can select the amount of compression that you want your songs delivered to your computer with. I have selected 320kbs, but you can go down as low as 16kbs, but I cant imagine that rate is any good.

[emorphien]

Alright NightFlier, I have to take issue with your post. I realize that you are unhappy about having to pay $1.00 for a song that is compressed. But I would argue it is far less expensive to purchase 1 song, than spend $12-17 for a full CD for 1 song you like.

While that's true, that's no justification for charging $1 for a compressed track.

Allofmp3.com has the best price/quality structure I've seen. Unfortunately there's the questionable legality of "purchasing" your music there. To me it seems more like you're paying for the bandwidth, but the songs are free.

[teledynepost]

Well new stuff is still released on vinyl so I don't think CD's are going to disappear entirely...

[noddin0ff]

Also, I am not sure if you are aware, but you can select the amount of compression that you want your songs delivered to your computer with. I have selected 320kbs, but you can go down as low as 16kbs, but I cant imagine that rate is any good.

Just curious where you saw this? Are you referring to the iTunes Store? I don't see that indicated anywhere on the site. The iTunes Store support page reads.

"Purchased songs are encoded using MPEG-4 Advanced Audio Coding (AAC) format, a high-quality format that rivals CD quality. Songs purchased and downloaded from the Music Store are AAC Protected files and have a bitrate of 128 kilobits per second (kbit/s). The file extension is .m4p."

You can set iTunes to rip from CD at many bitrates but this, to my knowledge doesn't effect downloads from the store.

...and that bit about "rivals CD quality" may be true...if you compare it to wax cylinders...

[Groundbeef]

I many have gotten ahead of myself. After checking into it a bit more you are probably correct. Itunes can RIP a CD at 320kbs. Sorry about that. I was equating "Import" with "Itunes". I need more sleep. Anyway procedure is listed below for anyone interested.

In your Itunes Interface, click on "Edit" on your upper left corner. Then select "preferences". Click on the "advanced" tab. Click on "importing" tab.
On setting click on "Custom" and scroll on down to 320kbs.

Also, it is interesting to note that in that same menu you can select the encoder you want to use. It is default to ACC Encoder, but there is a selection for MP3 and WAV encoders. Not sure if that is the actual file type or just how it comes into the computer. I may fool around with some of the weekly "free" files to see if it affects the file type that I receive.

[nightflier]

Beef,

As Mike pointed out, that does not justify the high price. I just checked out the allofmp3.com site, and I have to say that's a much better deal. 10-20 cents per song, download into any format or compression ratio, and own it. If more people knew about this, it would put iTunes out of business.

It's about time there was some real competition in this industry to bring prices back down to market-driven levels. And if this competition comes from abroad, then it's about time the US RIAA learns that they don't run the world. It's only a matter of time before China & India put up their own allofmp3 sites....

[Groundbeef]

Its not so much that $.20 or $.30 a song is a bad deal. However, just because that is what you want to pay makes it doable.
I would like a new Ferrari for $50.00, however there are some fixed costs that need to be covered.

If labels are selling songs for $.30, how much is getting to the artist? $.01-.03? Is it worth the effort to sell 100,000 copies and make yourself $1-3k? I doubt it. Your pricing is not going to support any artist. The option for the artist to sell direct isn't very practical either, as servers cost money, as well as covering the bandwidth.

I don't think that the artists make very much off Apple either, but its a better amount than if they were selling at the price you suggest.

As a consumer nation we are constantly *****ing about price, and how we want to pay less. I find it ironic that members of this board will spend hundreds, thousands or even tens of thousands of dollars for sound equipement, and complain that $1.00 for a song is going to break the bank.

If the format is the problem, would you pay $2.00 for a lossless copy? Perhaps we need to look at a bit more money, not less to get what you want.

I for one do not have all the answers, but I am curious as to your solutions. I don't think that lowering the price for songs is going to do anyone any good however.

[Mike Anderson]

I thought when digitally compressed audio files were written to a CD that it decompressed the files, thus making them indistinguishable from a store bought CD.

Nope, not with MP3s or any other lossless format. Once it's compressed, the extra information is lost forever, and no amount of burning to a CD will get it back.

There is lossless compression however (e.g. FLAC), but you can only compress so much. A typical CD can be compressed by about 50%.

With FLAC you can always burn back to a CD, but there's no reason to (other than actually having to use a CD player) because FLAC is indistinguishable quality-wise from a CD.

[swicken]

Let me clear things up for people, since you don't seem to understand exactly what is going on.

They made the iPod recognize a wide variety of formats, their main one of choice being the AAC (Apple Audio Codec)

Which in my opinion is fine, since it's a better means of compression then the MP3 anyway, provides better quality sound.

The only reason you can 'only' use the iTunes interface to import music on to your iPod is on account of the fact that after writing the files to your iPod it then writes an index file that the operating system on the iPod can recognize.

They didn't restrict access in any way, and not using iTunes is as simple as downloading a python script that builds the same index file FOR YOU, you just put the file on your iPod and double click it whenever you want to rebuild the index. Or you can even choose to change the operating system on the iPod (yes they didn't restrict that either).

Yes battery problems are an issue, but I doubt an issue they wanted.

You're not 'forced' to use any one store, people just don't know how to use other ones and still put it on the iPod. The french court battle is over digital compression methods, because Apple and Sony both use their own compression method for files on their stores, which makes them unplayable on other players.

That should be their right.

Anyway, just my 2 cents.

Scott

[Mike Anderson]

What no one is addressing here is that we're being asked to pay $1 a song for a lower quality format.

I agree with this, and it's the primary reason I don't by music from the iTunes store (in addition to the DRM, which isn't a problem for me yet).

The real danger is that this could become the only available source for music in the near future just because it is more convenient (and more profitable for them).

This I doubt. In time, market forces and technological influences will drive the prices down and the quality up. You can already by better quality music for the same price at other sites.

[noddin0ff]

I don't think it will effect the files you download (not the same as import). The iTunes Store determines that. It will effect the file created when you rip from a CD.

WAV or AIFF are non-compressed lossless. If you directly copy a file from an audio CD to your hard drive it becomes one of these formats. Essentially identical to the CD. PC's use WAV, Mac traditionally used AIFF. Now iTunes supports both on a Mac.